Who Really Owns the Airwaves?
by Brian JenningsFor decades, Americans have been brainwashed into thinking the broadcast airwaves are public. Are they? Or have we become so accustomed to thinking the airwaves are public that they have become so by default? By designating the airwaves as public domain, the government has become the referee of what we hear and see. And, when government has regulatory control of the media, potential danger lurks. Enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine until 1987 was one of the regulations that controlled the media, for example.
Listen to Ayn Rand
A little history behind the Federal Communications Commission and the notion that the airwaves belong to the public is in order. It all began in 1924 with Herbert Hoover when he served as Secretary of Commerce. It was Hoover who fought for government control of radio and made repeated attempts to extend government power beyond the limits set by legislation of the time including attempts to attached detailed conditions to radio licenses.
Author Ayn Rand wrote about this in 1964 in an essay titled “The Property Status of the Airwaves.” According to Rand, “It was Hoover’s influence that was largely responsible for that tombstone of the radio and the then unborn television industry known as the act of 1927, which established the Federal Radio Commission with all of its autocratic, discretionary, undefined, and undefinable powers.” With minor revisions, this act morphed into the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC was born.
As Rand noted in her essay, “The act of 1927 did not confine the government to the role of a traffic policeman of the air who protects the rights of broadcasters from technical interference (which is all that was needed and all that a government should properly do). It established service to the public interest, convenience, or necessity as the criterion by which the Federal Radio Commission was to judge applicants for broadcasting licenses and accept or reject them.”
Rand noted that the act amounted to a “blank check on totalitarian power over the broadcasting industry, granted to whatever bureacrats happened to be appointed to the Commission. She continued, “The Act of 1927 granted to a government Commission total power over the professional fate of broadcasters, with the public interest as the criterion of judgment and simultaneously forbade the Commission to censor radio programs. From the start, and progressively louder through the years, many voices have been pointing out that this is a contradiction impossible to practice. If a commissioner has to judge which applicant for a broadcasting license will serve the public interest, how can he judge it without judging the content, nature, and value of the programs the applicants have to offer or will offer?”
There is no question Democrats want to define the “public interest” obligations of broadcasters. It’s been in their platform for years and FCC Commissioners like Michael Copps have confirmed their intentions, including shortening the term of a broadcast license from eight to three years. The bottom line here is clear – intimidation tactics such as redefining public interest obligations and shortening license terms do not lead to a free media, but a controlled media. Long live these prophetic words of Ayn Rand!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
12 Comments
If Uncle is going to grant an exclusive license, I damn sure want Uncle to have some control over content. If the license ISN"T exclusive, then I don't care what's carried.
If you give "Uncle" that control, though, you give it to every "Uncle" who comes down the line. If you give "Uncle" George the power to ban anything or anyone he finds personally distasteful — even if you agree with his tastes one hundred per cent down the line — you're also giving "Uncle" Barry the same power to use against =you=.
To say nothing of the horrors such an attitude perpetrates against the Bill of Rights.
All a truly Constitutional FRC would have had to do is to calculate the amount of frequency space necessary to insulate theoretical (and existing) stations from interfering with one another on both local and regional bases, then step aside and use a land-rush approach to filling the slots available for broadcast. First on, first protected. First and fifth amendments protected. The power of the market — that is, of you and me and every other citizen of the republic — determines what stays and what goes.
But Hoover and the progressives had absolutely no use for markets or republics or constitutions; all they cared about was the raw, naked power to impose their obviously superior ideas on a terminally stupid and untutorable nation of serfs. And, so, here we are.
From the White House blog: There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
I offer myself up as sacrifice please report this blog post http://stopthepresses2.blogspot.com/2009/02/conse...
To the White House KGB after all it is fishy. I will now go into hiding.
I'm not sure that government regulation of "public" airwaves is the evil portrayed here…to be sure, it does open some doors to restrictions of First Amendment rights, and commercialization of the auctions of frequency bandwidth is a problem that wasn't even imaged in 1934 – but a world with less government interference in "radio" (and associated technologies) might be less than desirable.
I think looking at the internet is a possible glimpse into what that world might have looked like…for political and technological reasons, there is effectively no government regulation of content or licensing of "transmitters" on the internet – which brings a great deal of freedom to that media, but at a price — there are many undesirable and even illegal/immoral activities that can be found, and not much consumer/citizen protections against them. The internet is simply "buyer beware" – and as a paid service (and not a protected right), we might not expect a guarantee from the government as to the internet's safety…but we also don't want a world where the government stops its involvement at pre-1934 technology levels, either…because isn't it the government's role to provide some protections, to keep the population from descending from civilized behavior into anarchy? What would the state of radio and TV be with limited government involvement? Would it still be a media that we like?
Unfortunately, these “powerfully connected” Obama cultists don’t agree with you Brian.
They seem to feel that our 1st Amendment right over the “public airways” is something that will so be discarded by their “All Powerful Lifetime Leader” in the White House.
Should I not be concerned about their stance?
Here ➔http://www.screencast.com/users/GooDDaDDy/folders...
And Here ➔ http://www.screencast.com/users/GooDDaDDy/folders...
Or…should I just buy another a long gun?
Not Over.
So, government regulation is better than having freedom because freedom may lead to some undesirable action that may hurt me feelings? If there is ANY regulation of speech, it is not free.
Thanks BH.
You ate my post again.
Without so much as a by your leave.
Getting your new orders from the white house now are we?
Isn't this thread about free speech?
Not Over.
The simple fact is that the federal government has no legitimate interest in mass media, but systematic and deliberate avoidance of constitutional considerations have led to where we are today, which includes FCC control over cable television, for which I've never heard even a remotely plausible legal rationale.
"because isn't it the government's role to provide some protections, to keep the population from descending from civilized behavior into anarchy?"
No, not as you state it. The function of government is to protect individuals rights, which can only be violated by the initiation of force or fraud. It's purpose is most definitely NOT to keep us 'civilized'.
Moreover, the idea that what is today one of the most uncivilized institutions in American society – the Federal Government – is some sort of morally superior body who could carry out your goal properly is, on the face of it, absurd.
By that logic, the government should also have regulatory of print media- because, you know, it's the government's role to provide some protections, to keep the population from descending from civilized behavior into anarchy.
Exactly the argument used by press censors around the world. Even in Zimbabwe: "We have a completely free press, but of course no-one has the right to print false opinions."
There is one benefit to the Communications Act of 1934. While the law give the federal government power to regulate radio frequency broadcasts, it makes it clear that the airwaves belong to the people, not the government and specifically, at least as far as I understand, prohibits regulation of receiving devices.
While designating the airwaves as the public domain the Comm Act gave the feds broad powers in controlling broadcasters it also meant that Americans had broad rights specifically because those airwaves are public, just as we have broad rights of expression, assembly and travel on public property.
In the UK, you have to pay a fee to use a radio or television set. That would be illegal in the US under the Comm. Act. The airwaves here belong to the public so the public has every right to intercept broadcasts. The Comm. Act also makes local/state laws against radar detectors and police scanners somewhat dubious under federal law.
I don't see how we're more likely to get free and honest media, if we simply turn the airwaves over to corporate broadcasters bent on making a profit.
You must be logged in to post a comment.