Opinion ID: 698642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Spectrum Scarcity

Text: 115 In 1943, the Court determined that the unique characteristic of broadcast--that [u]nlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is not available to all--explained why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to governmental regulation. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 226, 63 S.Ct. 997, 1014, 87 L.Ed. 1344 (1943) (NBC). Twenty-six years later, the Court spun out the First Amendment implications of this burgeoning scarcity theory. Red Lion, 395 U.S. at 388-90, 89 S.Ct. at 1805-07. The Court first offered an economic scarcity theory, 8 finding that [w]here there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. 9 Id. at 388, 89 S.Ct. at 1806. The Court also offered a technological scarcity theory: recognizing the need to prevent overcrowd[ing of] the spectrum, 10 id. at 389, 89 S.Ct. at 1806, the Court held that, [b]ecause of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium, 11 id. at 390, 89 S.Ct. at 1806. 116 Although the Supreme Court has not declared the distinction between broadcast and other media a dead one, it has not lately given the distinction an enthusiastic endorsement. In fact, in recent years the Court has only grudgingly upheld the distinction. See, e.g., TBS, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2456-57. On a few occasions, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the mounting criticism against its scarcity rationale. See id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2457 (noting, that courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity rationale since its inception); 12 League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. at 376-77 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 3115-16 n. 11. 13 Nevertheless, to date, the Court has declined to revisit the validity of the scarcity rationale. See TBS, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2457 ([W]e have declined to question its continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence ... and see no reason to do so here.); League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. at 377 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 3116 n. 11 (We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required.). 14 In my view, it is no longer responsible for courts to apply a reduced level of First Amendment protection for regulations imposed on broadcast based on an indefensible notion of spectrum scarcity. It is time to revisit this rationale. 117 For years, scholars have argued that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum is neither an accurate technological description of the spectrum, nor a unique characteristic that should make any difference in terms of First Amendment protection. 15 First, in response to the problem of broadcast interference when multiple broadcasters attempt to transmit on the same frequency, critics point out that this problem does not distinguish broadcasting from print 16 and is easily remedied with a system of administrative licensing or private property rights. 17 Another problem alluded to by the Court in Red Lion is the claim that the spectrum is inherently limited, in contrast to cable stations or newsprint. Today, however, the nation enjoys a proliferation of broadcast stations, 18 and should the country decide to increase the number of channels, it need only devote more resources toward the development of the electromagnetic spectrum. 19 118 In response to the economic scarcity argument--that there are more would-be broadcasters than spectrum frequencies available--economists argue that all resources are scarce in the sense that people often would like to use more than exists. 20 Especially when the Government gives away a valuable commodity, such as the right to use certain airwaves free of charge, the demand will likely always exceed the supply. 21 And with the development of cable, spectrum-based communications media now have an abundance of alternatives, essentially rendering the economic scarcity argument superfluous. 119 In short, neither technological nor economic scarcity distinguish broadcast from other media. And while some may argue that spectrum scarcity may justify a system of administrative regulation as opposed to a free market approach to stations, 22 the theory does not justify reduced First Amendment protection. 120