[BC] Struggling with the Fairness Doctrine

[Mark Humphrey]

On 12/8/06, WFIFeng at aol.com <WFIFeng at aol.com> wrote:

>I can't believe what I'm reading, here...
>All the "UNfairness Doctrine" ever did was totally stifle free expression.
>Stations didn't dare air anything controversial, because they would have to
>provide equal airtime, at no charge, to the "opposing viewpoint".

I only cited the Fairness Doctrine as an example of a once "sacred"
FCC rule (remember the Red Lion case before the Supreme Court?) that
was repealed several years later, and would agree that it frightened
SOME operators away from controversial programming, but I recall many
other licensees that made a sincere effort to cover opposing
viewpoints.

Remember, the Doctrine was based on the premise that the airwaves are
"public property" and they are in scarce supply.  Opponents of the
Doctrine claimed the "scarcity argument" is no longer relevant, and
broadcasters were being denied basic First Amendment rights.  So it
was repealed, along with most other content regulation, a "victory for
free speech".

Although I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment, I still
struggle with this.

Ideally, over-the-air broadcasting would be a truly free, unregulated
medium (like print and Internet) but currently in the US, it's not.
Those who want access to broadcast airwaves must first obtain the
license - the "stick" -- and the price for that is very high in
densely-populated areas.  (By "very high", let's say 10 to 100 times
the cost of the capital equipment required to operate a station.)
Why do licenses sell for so much money?  In a word: SCARCITY!

This "barrier to entry" has a huge impact on the type of content
that's carried by licensees.  Programming that doesn't target a
"salable demographic" usually doesn't get much exposure on the air,
even if it appeals to a significant number of people.  For example,
classical music.

Many of us on this list (including myself) already own all of the
necessary equipment and have the know-how to put a station on the air,
so what's holding us back?

I want to start a low-power FM classical station (to replace the
service lost when WFLN changed format) but it's the "scarcity" thing
that's holding me back.   I've already found a couple of channels that
could be used in my community without causing significant interference
to other stations, but they aren't available under the existing FCC
allocation system.  This leaves no other legal alternative than to buy
an existing license.  I'm in the Philadelphia market (where little old
WHAT 1340 recently sold for $5,000,000) and can't afford current
prices here.    On the other hand, the Class A allotment in Bairoil,
Wyoming is only $1,500, but I don't want to move out there, and they
probably wouldn't appreciate my programming.

So where are my First Amendment rights?  I know if I go ahead and turn
on my 100 W transmitter and begin offering alternative content without
paying for a license, I'll get busted, just like Steve Dunifer.

Just playing devil's advocate; someone needs to point out the
shortcomings of our legal system once in a while (in an effort to
correct them.)

Mark