Media Profession Says Open Doesn't Own Airwaves

You are here: Home Page » News » Media profession says open doesn't own airwaves

May 5, 2011 2:55 PM, By Michael Grotticelli

The rational that the open owns the airwaves - quite as it concerns the control and assignment of the FCC - is "a mischievous belief that has been dissipated as a rationalisation for supervision regulation," according to Erwin G. Krasnow, a maestro communications profession and one-time broad give advice and comparison clamp boss of the NAB.

In a new "Speaking Freely" viewpoint paper expelled by The Thomas Jefferson Center is to Protection of Free Expression in Charlottesville, VA, and The Media Institute in Arlington, VA, Krasnow, the co-author of 15 books, mentioned the public-ownership belief is the principal reason for broadcasting's second-class position beneath the First Amendment. "It is time is to FCC to disown this 'discredited concept,'" he said.

Krasnow moreover mentioned it is time to cover up the nonesuch rationale, citing a 2006 FCC Media Bureau paper that found the motive void "based on essential misunderstandings of production and economics, effective resource apportionment and technology."

The multiple of open tenure and nonesuch has been the underlying reason for requesting a public-interest typical to announce regulation. It's time to reinstate that calm law with a open fascination typical formed on minimally regulated marketplace forces, Krasnow said.

"The air wave magnitude spectrum cannot be seen, overwhelmed or heard," Krasnow wrote. "It has existed longer than man, and similar to air, object or wind, cannot be owned by anyone. Does a person who uses a windmill to grub pellet or siphon H2O owe the 'public' is to use of the wind? What about the object used by those who blossom wheat, corn or other crops? And what about the use of the 'public's air space' by aircraft? The list could go on and on, and in any box it may be mentioned that someone is enchanting in a business craving by using a 'public resource.'"

Krasnow called is to embracing a cause of the draw close advocated by one-time FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, a Republican who served during the Reagan administration, by requesting a open fascination typical formed on minimally regulated marketplace forces rsther than than calm regulation. "Fowler once mentioned that either you call the public-trusteeship model of controlling broadcasters 'paternalism' or 'nannyism,' it is 'Big Brother,' and it contingency cease. Amen." Krasnow said.

Krasnow's paper is patrician "The First Amendment and the Fallacy of the Public's Airwaves." He is an associate in the law definite of Garvey Schubert Barer in Washington, DC, and one-time broad give advice and comparison clamp boss of the National Association of Broadcasters and the co-author of "The Politics of Broadcasting Regulation (3rd edition)."

The full paper may be downloaded from both organizations at www.tjcenter.org/ and www.mediainstitute.org/ .