j henry waugh said:
In your OPINION.
Broadcast licenses for television grant exclusive control over the airwaves to their holders. The original rationale for this was that the scarcity of broadcast spectrum required that access to it be strictly regulated. A government-appointed referee, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), awarded licenses to those parties deemed most able to serve “the public interest, convenience and necessity.” If they didn’t fulfill their duties, the FCC could revoke a license and award it to another party that might better serve the public.
I'm not disagreeing with you in that's what they're authorized by Congress to do. But I've always had a problem with the FCC regulating non-technical matters. And, yes, that is my opinion and the Constitution backs me up (although the interpretation thereof has been a bone of contention since the founding of the Republic. Since I'm not a Supreme Court justice, my opinion means diddly).
But the FCC’s practice in this regard has been dismal to say the least. Though licensed broadcasters have been required to operate in the public interest since the early days of radio, for decades the industry-friendly FCC did little or nothing to penalize stations for ignoring their public service obligations. Indeed, not once since the FCC’s founding in 1934 has the Commission revoked a single license of its own accord.
Actually, they have, but only under the most extreme circumstances. The original WHDH-TV in Boston lost its license, replaced by WCVB-TV, who promised to increase local programming, so the FCC awarded them the license for Channel 5 there.
Also, the owner of several radio stations in Indiana and Missouri lost his licenses because of his improper conduct with some teenage boys a few years ago. There have been several other broadcast licenses pulled because of improper conduct by the licensee(s). WIFE in Indianapolis and KIKX in Tucson come to mind immediately. So it has happened, just not very often.
The airwaves belong to the public interest. That is where the FCC has the "Constitutional right". They are granted the privilege of broadcasting. Please consult the original charter of the FCC, and not a twisted interpretation of Constitutional law.
No, it has the authorization of the Communications Act, passed by Congress, signed by the President, and amended over the years. The FCC has to follow the laws as passed, some of which are vague at best and unconstitutional at worst, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.
The FCC is required by statute to deny applications for license renewal if a licensee exhibits poor character.
As I said above, they have done so, but only rarely.
I'd say filling the schedule with infomercials exhibits "poor character", as would a majority of American citizens, the owners of the airwaves…
A majority of American citizens don't in fact listen to any particular radio station (name one with more than a 10 share in any one market, let alone nationwide. If any exist, it's only a handful), regardless of format or commercial content.
The fact of the matter is that infomercials are not illegal to broadcast 24/7 if a station wants to do so, so long as they aren't violating the law (and Colon-Blow doesn't violate the law AFAIK). They stink, and I don't listen to them either, but it is legal program content. There ain't no woulda-coulda-shoulda about it. Informercials are legal. Period. They may make for bad radio - really,
really bad radio - but not something that can cause a broadcaster's license to be revoked unless the laws or FCC regulations are changed accordingly.
If you don't like what KFNX spews over the airwaves, challenge their license when it comes up for renewal (they're certainly a candidate for revokation for lots of other reasons). Put together a group that can do better, and buy them out or take over legally if you're able to make a case in front of the FCC to do so. Until then, vote with your radio dial and listen to something else, like 99.9% of Phoenix listeners (including me) do.
