Hundt's second argument, that government can demand free airtime as a quid pro quo for free spectrum, is no more persuasive now than it was when he was chairman. Almost all existing licensees, did not receive free licenses. They paid a full market price for their licenses and moreover, the licensees provide a vital free service to the public every day. Hundt's call to place free airtime at the top of an open-ended regulatory wish list is not the deal Congress made. There is one point, however, about which Reed and I can agree.
Debates are the best way to clarify the differences between candidates on the issues.
But we disagree on the best way to encourage broadcasters to provide such coverage. This should be an editorial judgment by newsmen not a partisan directive from political appointees. Historically, robust political debate has been promoted more by the absence of FCC political broadcasting rules than by their enforcement. He attributed the difference to the absence of the over-inclusive Section 315 obligations in 1960. The 1976 debates were made possible by an FCC vote declaring that debates constituted bona fide news.