>
there are valid reasons to do these things, chiefly out of a sense of order and planning and logical expansion and improvement.
>
1st, and ALWAYS #1: “By what authority?...”. 2nd, yes, and the free market handles such things quite well enough.
>
However, it should not be the FCC’s business to regulate content, equal time or a host of other things it now does. It most certainly needs a comprehensive overhaul IMO to get the politics out and common sense and planning back in.
>
See #1 above. Equal time\etc., that is up to the provider (whom wished to $$$). As per content, that is handled best by the consumer (got a good enough ‘ratings’ method to use the on\off\channel buttons as required).
The ONE area where I believe there needs govt to utilize its authority (roll-back that which it allowed): the monopoly of news\TV\cable\media\etc. by a few corporations.
>
No it doesn't. This was shown in early radio and HF communications. And it was authorized by the Communications Act of 1934 - our US Congress. The one with the biggest transmitter ruled and at night their signals carried vast distances. Free market worked early on because the spectrum wasn't crowded but that quickly degenerated.
Further, de-confliction with foreign (international sources) wasn't possible either. The same thing with the microwave spectrum, AND the cellular and PCS spectrum, a HOST of commercial activities that would be falling all over themselves were it not for some kind of coordination.
How about de-confliction of frequency bands and separations on cell towers (some have 7-8 tiers of different vendor equipment and frequencies.). Even with the microwave relays that connect these towers to the regular comm system.
I've spent my adult life since my days in the military working in communications and radar and I can tell you that the "free market doesn't solve everything." It's a nice thing to say "get rid of all government functions" but there are some functions that if kept free from politics work.