That's what Bill Clinton says he wants:

"With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much," Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

"Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn't have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view...then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn't use the airwaves. It's a cable/satellite channel. And the "scarcity" argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn't get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don't want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine--they just want more "responsibility" on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of "balance" is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only "left" and "right." Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.

Also airways will become even less scarce with the transition to HD television and radio.

Yes Bill, the airways belong to the public, that's why government should keep their hands off of them and let the market decide.

That said, I still wouldn't mind an option to see/listen to real News when I'm having to sit in the airport terminal.

The revived "Fairness Doctrine" should be named what it really is: the "Silence Anyone Who Opposes The Democrats Doctrine."

The airwaves belong to the public? Sheesh, he might as well have said the means of production belong to the proletariat. Dumbass neo-Marxist.

How about: the resource should be exploited by the person(s) who can create the most public value with it? Now there's a principle with nice adamsmithiness to it. Why allow fools to exploit a "limited public resource" who are just going to waste it? Would it be better to allocate precious irrigation water to someone who'll grow a bounty crop of organic almonds and cotton, or some incompetent who'll produce a mere trickle of grub-chewed pesticide-drenched limp cabbage? We know how a principled Clintonista (if there were any) would respond.

In which case, alas Babylon, it turns out the best "stewards" of the public airwaves would be conservative talk radio, which uses it to create a "product" that is in such wide demand that it, among competing possible alternative "products" (like liberal talk radio, or endless public-service announcements interspersed with Terry Gross interviews of our courageous movie actors), must best meet the needs and desires of the largest swathe of citizens.

It is important to note that their are more than two sides to most issues and that the current idea of balancing two sides with the Fairness Doctrine is extremely flawed because it would either have to silence anything but the two or further segment air time between several points of view. I do some work with the NAB and the amount of airtime this would cost would most likely just end up scaring radio stations away from covering any controversial issues so that they wouldn't be subject to these regulations. I think the reason they've given up calling for the all out return of the Doctrine is because they've realized that it would never pass - it doesn't make sense, and it would do more harm than anything else.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others of his community and present those views which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves

No one has a First Amendment right to monopolize a broadcast frequency. Unlike newspaper owners, every broadcaster knows going in that his ability to pursue his private interests are constrained by the obligation to serve the public

And we should not be deterred in this critical task by those who would use specious constitutional arguments

No one has a First Amendment right to monopolize a broadcast frequency.

Of course he does, silly person, just as much as he has a right to "monopolize" an audio frequency by talking out loud. Arguably more right, in fact, since our "receivers" for a speech broadcast (ears) can't be tuned nearly as easily to an alternate frequency to hear alternate messages. Someone ranting through a megaphone from a soapbox outside the DMV is "monopolizing" the public listening space at least as much as someone broadcasting radio waves.

Or are you actually aware of any person or group unable to get his or her or their message out because the radio spectrum is utterly saturated, across the entire nation, from the kHz to the THz?

every broadcaster knows going in that his ability to pursue his private interests are constrained by the obligation to serve the public

No doubt, Plato. Now comes the tricky part: who decides what, precisely, "serves the public?" The broadcaster? A majority vote of listeners? A government functionary? Your local Thought Police commander?

Figure that one out for good and all, and you'll have finally solved the socialist conundrum and we can look forward to Heaven on Earth(TM). Until then, your breezy platitude begs any number of key questions in the usual sophist way.

Carl,
the simple answer to your question is, the Democrats. Just ask any one of them.

Oh, aye, Steve. But what about me? I remain unable to communicate to all of you unwashed yokels out there the Truth which God has revealed to me, about how you can all live in peace and harmony, simply by sending me 10% of your income every year.

If only those bastards at Fox and NBC weren't allowed to monopolize the airwaves, not to mention all that broadcast equipment, merely because they will pay millions of dollars to do so and I can't...