5 ms·

The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum).

by ls612 6y ago

The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum). Cable TV, newspapers were not affected and the internet likely wouldn’t have been affected either.

xxpor 6y ago
Yeah exactly. We might not have had Rush Limbaugh in the mid-90s, but we still would have had Fox News or whatever.
SilasX 6y ago
That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown any FD-style restriction on political speech in parks.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  The nature of each "public good" could be evaluated to determine what was appropriate to ensure all citizens equal access to a public good. FD just required a media outlet to make sure the media basically gave another candidate the opportunity to access, it didn't actually require equal time, not unless that candidate wanted to, or in the case of advertisements was willing to buy them. Certainly parkland should be equally available to members of different political parties, but it's not like you have to use the same standard either: the nature of a "public good" would determine the nature of what fair equal access meant. For airwaves it's one thing. For a limited physical resource it's another.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Parkland is a limited physical resource.
    - pythonaut_16 6y ago
      But limited in a different way than radio spectrum.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      So is radio spectrum. Regardless, as I said, you determine for each "public good" what appropriate fairness means. You don't back down from it just because doing the right thing isn't as easy as doing the easy thing.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        Right, so you haven't identified what's different about one that makes the FD the right answer in one case.
mehrdadn 6y ago
What's the reasoning for the distinction? How is spectrum over the air a public good but spectrum over wires not?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  The broadcast spectrum is considered a limited-supply public property, so the FCC (or other national equivalents) issues licenses allowing organizations (or standards) to use parts of it. Wires are not limited supply in any meaningful sense (just install more), and in many parts of the world, not even public property.
  - Retric 6y ago
    You must cross public property ie roads to install a large scale wired network. That said, it’s a difference in scale creating a difference in kind.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      The involves being granted easements, which are also not a limited public good in the general case.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > just install more It's so hard to take that seriously (e.g., exactly how many sets of cables per home is reasonable? and how often can people be expected to change them?), but even if I somehow do: How is that different from, say, electric power, as far as constitutionality goes? We have the Federal (Water) Powers Act, FERC, etc. that regulate power distribution (among other things). I would've thought these are all easy to constitutionally justify the regulation of based on other clauses (like the Commerce Clause).
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      "more" in this context can mean "reach more locations" or "increase the bandwidth to existing locations". I'm not aware of bandwidth issues requiring much more than an update maybe once in 50-100 years. For example, where I live in rural NM, the houses around here presumably got paired telephone wires on the order of 50-100 years ago, and then within the last 10-15 years they got rewired with multi-twisted-pair cables that easily get to 50Mbps. While in 80 years that might not be considered sufficient, I doubt anyone will seriously suggest another round of recabling within that time frame. But anyway, you really seem to be missing the fundamental point here: there is no limited "spectrum" for wiring in the sense of multiple possible parties who want to use "parts of it" for various purposes. If you assign the XMHz to YMHz band of the electromagnetic spectrum to some purpose, it's gone, it cannot be used for anything else, by anyone else, across a potentially vast geographic area. There's no equivalent for this in the context of digital (or analog) data moving down wires.

by ls612 6y ago

xxpor 6y ago

Yeah exactly. We might not have had Rush Limbaugh in the mid-90s, but we still would have had Fox News or whatever.

SilasX 6y ago

That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown any FD-style restriction on political speech in parks.

ineedasername 6y ago
The nature of each "public good" could be evaluated to determine what was appropriate to ensure all citizens equal access to a public good. FD just required a media outlet to make sure the media basically gave another candidate the opportunity to access, it didn't actually require equal time, not unless that candidate wanted to, or in the case of advertisements was willing to buy them. Certainly parkland should be equally available to members of different political parties, but it's not like you have to use the same standard either: the nature of a "public good" would determine the nature of what fair equal access meant. For airwaves it's one thing. For a limited physical resource it's another.
- SilasX 6y ago
  Parkland is a limited physical resource.
  - pythonaut_16 6y ago
    But limited in a different way than radio spectrum.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    So is radio spectrum. Regardless, as I said, you determine for each "public good" what appropriate fairness means. You don't back down from it just because doing the right thing isn't as easy as doing the easy thing.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      Right, so you haven't identified what's different about one that makes the FD the right answer in one case.

mehrdadn 6y ago

What's the reasoning for the distinction? How is spectrum over the air a public good but spectrum over wires not?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The broadcast spectrum is considered a limited-supply public property, so the FCC (or other national equivalents) issues licenses allowing organizations (or standards) to use parts of it. Wires are not limited supply in any meaningful sense (just install more), and in many parts of the world, not even public property.
- Retric 6y ago
  You must cross public property ie roads to install a large scale wired network. That said, it’s a difference in scale creating a difference in kind.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    The involves being granted easements, which are also not a limited public good in the general case.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > just install more It's so hard to take that seriously (e.g., exactly how many sets of cables per home is reasonable? and how often can people be expected to change them?), but even if I somehow do: How is that different from, say, electric power, as far as constitutionality goes? We have the Federal (Water) Powers Act, FERC, etc. that regulate power distribution (among other things). I would've thought these are all easy to constitutionally justify the regulation of based on other clauses (like the Commerce Clause).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    "more" in this context can mean "reach more locations" or "increase the bandwidth to existing locations". I'm not aware of bandwidth issues requiring much more than an update maybe once in 50-100 years. For example, where I live in rural NM, the houses around here presumably got paired telephone wires on the order of 50-100 years ago, and then within the last 10-15 years they got rewired with multi-twisted-pair cables that easily get to 50Mbps. While in 80 years that might not be considered sufficient, I doubt anyone will seriously suggest another round of recabling within that time frame. But anyway, you really seem to be missing the fundamental point here: there is no limited "spectrum" for wiring in the sense of multiple possible parties who want to use "parts of it" for various purposes. If you assign the XMHz to YMHz band of the electromagnetic spectrum to some purpose, it's gone, it cannot be used for anything else, by anyone else, across a potentially vast geographic area. There's no equivalent for this in the context of digital (or analog) data moving down wires.