[PS 415]

Regulation of radio (and, eventually, television) broadcasting generally dates back to 1912 with the passage of the Radio Communications Act. The main purpose of this act was to require radio stations to obtain licenses from the Department of Commerce and Labor for broadcasting purposes. (Later, this Department split into the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor). Radio broadcasting grew a great deal by the 1920s. Unfortunately, many stations did not pay attention to the frequency and air time restrictions which were placed upon them by the Secretary of Commerce. Confusion reigned on the airwaves. The Evangelist, Aimee Semple McPherson of Los Angeles, for example, operated her radio station "at whatever frequency and power the Lord told her to use."

The general call for more regulation from the industry itself led to the Radio Act of 1927 which established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC). In 1934 the functions of the FRC were merged with the telephone and telegraph regulatory activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Postmaster General. The Federal Communications Act, which passed that year, created a seven member Federal Communications Commission (the FCC) which was to regulate telephone, telegraph, and broadcast stations for the federal government.

The Communications Act charged the Commission with a number of functions with regard to broadcast stations, several of which tended to be in conflict with each other. For example, Section 309 of the Act suggested the revocation of a station's license if the FCC deemed that the "public interest, convenience, or necessary" were not being served by the specific broadcaster. However, Section 326 of the Act specifically gave the FCC the power of censorship only in matters of "obscene, indecent, or profane language." In order to determine if the public interest was being served, the FCC obviously needed to evaluate the content of a station's broadcasting. However, to do so might often be construed as conflicting with the Act's anticensorship clause, as well as the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Section 315 of the Communications Act evolved into what became known as the "Fairness Doctrine." This section of the Act required that broadcasters from time to time air issues of public importance--even if they are controversial. It also required that broadcasting stations grant equal air time to political candidates when differing points of view are broadcast. In pursuing this provision of the act, the FCC has often been caught between the requirements of regulation and the dictates of the First Amendment. In 1959, Congress exempted news broadcasts from the "equal time" requirements of this section.

Some suggest that the Fairness Doctrine had an effect contrary to the original intent of the Act. They note that it tends to discourage diversity of opinion or debate, and has led to mediocrity in both editorial programming and entertainment. This Doctrine was rescinded during the Reagan Administration. However, this may have only complicated the picture, and limited the scope of the points of view being presented on radio and other media today.

In 1941 when the Federal Communications Commission sought to foster competition as required by the Communications Act, the FCC ordered the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) to sell its "blue" radio network. Eventually, this network became what we know today as the American Broadcasting Company (ABC). This decision of the FCC was challenged in court, but was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943. In its decision, the Court recognized FCC's broad power to regulate individual stations' licenses.

In 1946, the FCC issued a report called "The Public Service Responsibilities of Broadcast Licensees," which served as a guide for the evaluation of programming content. This report compared stations' actual programming with their promises of program content, and found great discrepancies between the two. Although this report seemed to indicate that the FCC would become very involved in evaluating programming content, political pressure and other factors--such as an inadequate budget--led to a much reduced role for the FCC.

According to Gabriel Kolko, regulatory agencies tend over time to become captured by the very industries they were established to regulate. Some have accused the FCC of falling prey to this tendency in the early postwar years. As an example of this, they point to the fact that in 1947 Charles Denney, Jr., then Chairman of the FCC, resigned to become an NBC vice president. This resignation followed several decisions by the FCC favoring the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), the parent company of NBC.

Others have pointed to a different type of pressure on the FCC. For example, in the 1940s and 1950s FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy exerted a great deal of pressure on the Commission to refuse to renew the licenses of some stations because of unfounded allegations of "communist sympathies," as well as for more personal reasons. Furthermore, actions by the Johnson and Nixon administrations also tended to put a great deal of political pressure on the FCC--more so, some would argue, than actions of the broadcasting industry.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the industry was rocked by scandal involving quiz shows on television, and "payola" on the radio. However, the FCC felt its regulatory authority did not extend to dealing with such matters. In the 1960s, the Commission suggested that local broadcasters should determine "the public interest" rather than the FCC itself, and required broadcasters to determine their communities' "needs, problems and issues." This was one way of reducing the FCC's role in evaluating programming content, and the problems that this caused.

In 1961, Newton N. Minnow became perhaps the most well known chair of the FCC. In a famous speech before the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the industry's lobbying arm, he suggested that television programming had become "a vast wasteland." Under his chairmanship, however, the FCC did not have a significant effect on television programming. On the other hand, Minnow did take action during his time in office to strengthen public and educational television.

In 1970, the Commission attempted to reduce the dominance of television networks by giving an additional half hour in prime time to local broadcasters. This was accomplished by the Prime Time Access Rule (PTAR). This decision of the FCC was an attempt to increase local influence, and provide for a larger amount of local programming during evening prime time hours. However, most local broadcasters used this extra time for reruns and game shows, rather than to present local programming--which they generally found to be less profitable. This is an interesting example of the difference between policy outputs (legislation and regulation) and policy outcomes (the actual effects of such legislation and regulation on society).

As communications technologies advanced during the century, the regulatory scope of the FCC continued to grow, from radio to TV, to certain aspects of cable television, as well as to satellite communications. Within the area of radio communications, the FCC's authority extends not only to commercial and noncommercial broadcasting, but to the assignment of frequencies for police band broadcasts, short wave, "ham" radio, and citizen's band (CB) radio. All of this, of course, is in addition to the regulatory authority the FCC has in the areas of telephone and telegraph communications.

With the development of computer networks, including the Internet, broadband fiberoptic communication, and direct satellite broadcasting, as well as with the globalization of communications, the role of the FCC and of federal regulation of these industries is in need of change. Many competing directions for this change have been suggested by the various elements in the industries involved, as well as by public interest groups. Some of the concerns involve the amount of foreign ownership of U.S. television stations, the influence of television networks as compared to that of local broadcasters, the simultaneous ownership in particular communities of all alternative sources of information--such as radio, broadcast television, cable TV, and newspapers.

During the Democratic-dominated 103rd Congress (1993-94) there was an attempt to pass legislation which would have radically changed the role of the FCC and other federal agencies in the regulation of broadcast radio and television, as well as such industries as that of cable TV and the telephone. However, fights between various elements in these industries led to a stalemate in which no legislation was passed.

During the Republican-dominated 104th Congress (1995-96) new telecommunications legislation was passed: the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This replaces most major previous legislation an court decisions on the subject. Many feel that the current legislation is extremely pro-industry, and that the general public will suffer under this legislation.