BROADCASTING

BROADCASTING

As a verb, to transmit programs or signals
intended to be received by the public through
radio, television, or similar means. As a noun, the
radio, television, or other program received by the
public through the transmission.
In 1898 Guglielmo Marconi, a 24-year-old
Italian, began the world’s first commercial radio
service. For citizens of the United States, radio – and later television – not only introduced an
abundance of entertainment and information, it
also raised many legal questions surrounding its
implementation and regulation. In radio’s earli-
est days, stations all broadcast at the same fre-
quency; this situation posed problems because
although some stations agreed to share their
time, others attempted to broadcast stronger
signals over those of their competitors. Prob-
lems continued even when stations began to
broadcast on separate frequencies. Because
broadcasting requires use of the airwaves for the
transmission of its signals, and because the air-
waves can carry only a limited number of sig-
nals, it soon became apparent that some form of
regulation was necessary. In 1927, the Radio Act
(47 U.S.C.A § 81 et seq.) became law and the
Federal Radio Commission (FRC) was created
to police the broadcasting industry. Two impor-
tant tenets of broadcasting were introduced by
the law. The first was that stations must broad-
cast “in the public interest, convenience, or
necessity.” The second was that the people, not
the radio stations, owned the airwaves. In its
efforts to see that the airwaves were used in the
appropriate manner, government regulation
faced obstacles as it attempted to ensure suitable
government-funded programming, appropriate
programming for children, and equal access to
broadcasting for minorities. Additional chal-
lenges were created by changing technology as
CABLE TELEVISION went underground and
satellite television took to outer space.
The History of Radio
In its infancy, broadcasting was much less
controversial. Experimental radio broadcasting
began in 1910 when Lee De Forest produced a
program from the Metropolitan Opera House in
New York City. Other experimental radio sta-
tions were started at the University ofWisconsin
in Madison in 1915 and another in Wilkinsburg,
Pennsylvania, a suburban of Pittsburgh, in 1916.
Detroit radio station WWJ is considered the
first commercial radio station in the United
States. It began broadcasting on August 20,
1920. Pittsburgh station KDKA grew out of the
Wilkinsburg experimental station. Its broadcast
of the 1920 presidential election results on
November 2, 1920, is generally considered to be
124 BRING SUIT
the beginning of professional broadcasting.
Although fewer than one thousand receivers
were tuned in, the excitement of the event cre-
ated great publicity.
Stations soon started appearing in all parts
of the United States. By the end of 1924, 583
radio stations were transmitting and more than
3 million receivers were tuned in. These stations
transmitted radio signals using amplitude mod-
ulation, the abbreviation of the term becoming
the general category AM radio. AM broadcasts
can be received at great distances because the
radio transmissions bounce off the atmosphere
and reach beyond the curve of the earth. How-
ever, AM signals are affected by static, thus
reducing sound fidelity.
Radio established itself as a national
medium with the creation of the first radio net-
work in 1926. In that year the National Broad-
casting Company (NBC), led by David Sarnoff,
head of its parent company, Radio Corporation
of America, presented its first national broad-
cast. Radio stations around the country entered
into contracts with NBC that allowed them to
receive an audio feed through a telephone line,
which was then broadcast by the station’s radio
transmitter.Apart from creating a national radio
audience, NBC also introduced the financial
cornerstone of commercial radio: networks and
local stations would support themselves by sell-
ing advertising time. The success of NBC led to
the creation of the Columbia Broadcasting Sys-
tem (CBS), led by William Paley.
The success of radio produced problems as
well. There was competition for frequencies and
increased transmission power. The strongest
AM stations have a power of 50,000 watts. At
this strength, a station can be heard at night up
to 1,000 miles away. The least powerful AM sta-
tions operate at 250 watts, which usually limits
their range to one or two towns. Unregulated
growth of the radio industry led in 1934 to the
passage of the Communications Act (40
U.S.C.A. § 791). This act created the FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC), which
replaced the FRC. The FCC began regulating
broadcasting content. In the 1930s it banned
over-the-air advertisement of hard liquor and
lotteries.
The period from 1925 to 1950 has been
called the “Golden Age of Radio.” During this
period radio was a major source of family enter-
tainment. Every night families would gather
around the radio and listen to news, music,
comedies, and adventure dramas. Serialized sto-
ries aimed mainly at women, dubbed “soap
operas,” became popular. They were called soap
operas because they were initially sponsored by
soap companies. President FRANKLIN ROO-
SEVELT became the first president to understand
the power of radio. He regularly conducted
“fireside chats” over the radio between 1933 and
1945. These informal talks helped Roosevelt
gain support for his policies.
The importance of radio as a national
medium was reinforced during WORLD WAR II.
Edward R. Murrow became a national figure
when he broadcast from London during the
early years of the war. Following the U.S.
entrance into the war in December 1941, mil-
lions of Americans turned to the radio every day
to hear the latest war news.

The popularity of radio continued into the late 1940s until the beginning of television signaled radio’s rapid demise as the major source of  home entertainment. The popularity of televi-
sion was so great and so sudden that the FCC had to put a temporary freeze on the granting of licenses, as the number of available broadcast channels was limited. As soon as the freeze was lifted, radio began to lose advertisers to the new
medium. Network radio was nearly dead by the early 1950s because all of its greatest stars had moved their programs to television. NBC and
CBS quickly shifted their focus to the creation of television networks.
Faced with this sudden change, AM radio
developed new formats.Music stations began to
specialize in top 40 hits in popular music, country
music, and rhythm and blues music. By the
1990s, talk radio had become a popular and
profitable format, making national celebrities of
political commentator Rush Limbaugh and
“shock jocks” Howard Stern and Don Imus.
Stern and Imus received the shock jock designation
as a result of their raunchy and outrageous
behavior on the air. Pacifica challenged the
FCC’s actions.
Radio broadcasting experienced new growth
in the 1960s and 1970s with the licensing of
many FM radio stations. FM stations transmit
radio signals by frequency modulation, hence the
initials, FM. FM waves do not travel as far as AM
waves, but FM waves are not affected by static as
much as AM waves. In addition, FM signals produce
a much truer reproduction of sound. Since
the late 1960s FM stations have had the ability of
broadcasting in stereo. This development was a
factor in the growth of the popularity of FM stations.
Music from records and compact disks
can be transmitted in high fidelity.
Despite the dominance of television, radio
continues to play a major role in broadcasting.
More than 10,000 radio stations were broadcasting
in the United States in 1995.
As of 2003, the FCC was continuing to serve
numerous roles in the radio broadcasting industry.
It processes license applications, assigns frequencies
and call signs, conducts hearings,
enforces regulations, licenses radio operators,
and carries out the provisions of the Communications
Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the
FCC’s right to police the airwaves for obscene
material. In Federal Communications Commission
v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.
Ct. 3026, L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1978), a New York
radio station owned by the Pacifica Foundation
broadcast comedian George Carlin’s monologue
on the “seven dirty words you can’t say on the
radio.” When a listener complained to the FCC
that he had heard the monologue in his car
while his young son was present, the FCC investigated.
Although it imposed no formal sanction,
the FCC indicated that the complaint
would be placed in the station’s license file. If
any subsequent complaints were received, the
commission stated that it would then decide
whether any sanctions would be applied. One
potential sanction was the loss of the station’s
license, when it came up for renewal in three
years.
Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS, writing for the
majority, noted that the “broadcast media have
established a uniquely pervasive presence in the
lives of all Americans.” Offensive material over
the airwaves “confronts the citizen, not only in
public, but also in the privacy of the home,
where individuals’ right to be left alone plainly
outweighs the FIRST AMENDMENT rights of an
intruder.” In addition, broadcasting is “uniquely
accessible to children, even those too young to
read.” Thus, the Court ruled that the FCC had
the constitutional right to take the action it did.
In 1987 the FCC demonstrated its continuing
interest in preventing the radio broadcast of
indecent or obscene language when it threatened
not to renew the licenses of several radio
stations in New York and California that were
engaged in “shock radio.” The talk programs,
including one by Howard Stern, were intentionally
controversial and given to large doses of
profanity and sexual innuendo. Although the
FCC’s threats made headlines, there was little
talk of challenging the agency’s regulations.
The FCC had a hand in the growth of political
talk radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh’s
when it repealed the “fairness doctrine” in 1987.
Since 1934, the FCC had required broadcasters
to devote a reasonable proportion of their airtime
to discussion of important public issues.
Until 1987, the FCC had interpreted this doctrine
to require broadcasters who ran editorials
that criticized specific persons to provide notice
to the persons involved and airtime for rebuttal.
The Supreme Court upheld the FAIRNESS
DOCTRINE as a reasonable balance between the
public interest in hearing various points of view
and the broadcaster’s interests in free expression.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications
Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S. Ct.
1794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969). Nevertheless, the
doctrine remained controversial until its repeal.
Freed from this doctrine, radio show hosts such
as Limbaugh were free to criticize public figures
without having to give the person airtime to
respond.
Although a radio license is considered property,
a license does not have a constitutional
right to a radio license, nor does a licensee
obtain a vested interest in any frequency. The
FCC continues to consider all applications for a
licensee to use a radio frequency. Both new applicants and applicants seeking to renew their
licenses must demonstrate to the FCC that the
issuance or renewal of the license will serve the
public interest.
Congress has retained the right, through the
FCC, to deny licenses or to eliminate existing
radio stations. The FCC may eliminate a station
upon a showing that the station engaged in misconduct,
such as attempts to bribe an official of
the FCC. The commission may also eliminate
stations in order to allocate licenses fairly and
equitably, as well as for considerations related to
wavelengths, times of operation, and the relative
power of stations among various states.
The History of Television
In 1928, General Electric (GE) displayed the
first presentation on a television, but it was quite
some time before the invention became a practical
reality. The 1930s brought an excitement to
those conducting experiments on the new technology.
They predicted that television would be
as much a part of the life of the United States as
radio had become.
In 1939, the National Broadcasting Company
(NBC) brought television to the world
during the New York World’s Fair, and on February
1, 1940, it conducted the first official network
television broadcast in the United States.
In 1941, the FCC officially authorized commercial
television, transferred television sound from
AM to FM, and increased the resolution standards
for broadcasts. By 1948, a total of 36 television
stations were broadcasting and over 1
million television sets were receiving. So many
applications for new stations were coming in to
the FCC that a freeze on requests was instituted.
In 1952, the freeze was lifted and 70 ultrahighfrequency
(UHF) channels were added to those
already available. By 1953, nearly 400 stations
were providing coverage to nearly 90 percent of
the United States; no medium in history could
compare to television in its record-breaking
implementation.

The Future of Radio and Television
As the popularity of television and radio
continues to grow, controversy and concern
continue to surround their implementation and
worth. Issues range from government regulation
to suitable or ethical content. The future of the
broadcast industry is in the hands of the courts
and the government as they seek to determine
the best possible means of making the broadcast
media serve the needs of the society that has
grown to depend on them.
Cable Television
Communications technology advanced
again when cable television joined traditional
broadcast radio and television. Cable television,
or community antenna television (CATV), provides
a means for otherwise inaccessible areas to
receive broadcast signals that are in some way
impeded. The FCC claimed authority over the
regulation of cable television in 1966. The claim
of this authority was challenged, but in 1968, it
was upheld by the Supreme Court (United States
v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 88 S. Ct.
1994, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1001).
Dealing with cable television has proved to
be controversial. The standards that were originally
established in the Communications Act
apply to broadcast television; cable television is
not broadcast across the airwaves—it is transmitted
through coaxial cable that may be able to
carry over 200 channels. Because of this fact,
some argue that cable television should be
treated more like print media such as newspapers
and magazines, than like broadcast television.
Since cable operators select the channels
that they carry, they argue that they should be
treated as “electronic publishers.”
Such distinctions are significant because the
U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First
Amendment will tolerate more government regulation
of the broadcast media than of the print
media because the physical capacity of the airwaves
is limited and cannot accommodate all
the existing demand (FCC v. National Citizens
Committee for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 98 S.
Ct. 2096, 56 L. Ed. 2d 697 [1978]). In other
words, without regulation, the competing voices
on the airwaves would drown each other out.
In one form or another, government regulation
is involved in two issues concerning cable
television. One issue is whether cities may limit
access to all or part of their territory to a single
cable supplier.Many cities have granted what are
essentially MONOPOLY franchises, and this practice
has been challenged by cable suppliers who
argue that disallowing them a franchise interferes
with their free speech rights.
The cable franchise system that exists for
cable operators was approved by Congress in
1984 in the Cable Communications Policy Act
(15 U.S.C.A. § 21; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511; 46 U.S.C.A.
§§ 484–487; 47 U.S.C.A. § 35 et seq.). This act
attempted to balance the interests of cable operators,
who wanted less regulation, with the publicpolicy
concerns of the cities, which wanted
guarantees that poorer neighborhoods would be
wired for cable and that educational and government
programming would not be neglected.
Under 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 541–543, a franchising
authority—usually a city or county—may award
one or more franchises within its jurisdiction; in
practice, most have chosen one. Franchising
authorities are authorized to require cable operators
to reserve channel space for public, educational,
and government use. Operators may also
be required to make space available for lease for
commercial use by persons not affiliated with
the operator.
This system of franchising has been attacked
from both sides. Some operators have become
upset when their applications for franchises
were denied in areas where other operators had
established franchises. The public has also been
concerned over the monopolistic nature of cable
operators. Arguments often revolve around the
issue of cable rates; competition among cable
operators, it is argued, would also lead to competitive
pricing of services. Despite this argument,
very few franchising authorities choose to
offer more than a single cable operator to an
area’s residents.
The second issue surrounding the regulation
of cable television is whether the FCC’s “mustcarry”
rules, which require a cable operator to
carry all local television stations, violate the
First Amendment. The must-carry rules were
instituted in an effort to ensure that cable television
would not undermine the financial viability
of free community-oriented television by
attracting so many viewers away from local
broadcast television stations that the advertising
revenues of those stations would plummet. In
1984, a federal appeals court held that the mustcarry
rules violated the First Amendment
(Quincy Cable TV v. FCC, 768 F. 2d 1434 [D.C.
Cir. 1985]). The Supreme Court denied review
of the case, and the FCC eliminated the mustcarry
rules.
The must-carry rules were problematic for
one main reason: although most cable operators
have the ability to carry many hundreds of
channels, some can carry only a dozen. Requiring
the latter to carry all local stations severely
limited their ability to attract subscribers. Operators
also argued that being forced to carry all
local broadcasts caused cable systems to become
saturated and deprived cable programmers of
opportunities to sell their services.
Satellite Broadcasting
The new technology of direct-broadcast
satellite television is replacing transmission over
the airwaves with transmission by satellite signals
beamed to the home from space. Like cable
television, despite its separation from conventional
airwave broadcasting, the new technology
has generated legal controversy.
To maintain constant, direct contact between
itself and the recipients of its signals, a satellite
must hold a geostationary orbit directly above
Earth’s equator at an altitude of 22,300 miles. (A
geostationary orbit is an orbit that keeps the
satellite’s position fixed with respect to Earth.)
The controversy surrounding satellite broadcasting
comes not from any limit on the number of
signals it can send but instead from the physical
limitation of these geostationary orbits.
The world saw its first geostationary satellite
launched by the United States in 1963; as of
1992, the United States had 30 geostationary
satellites orbiting Earth. By the mid-1980s, the
United States and other developed countries
were quickly filling the equatorial orbit with
satellites.Many developing countries feared that
by the time they had developed the technology to put up their own satellites, the zone of geostationary
orbit in space would be filled and
they would be forced to buy broadcast time
from countries owning satellites that were
already in orbit. In 1985, the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), an agency of
the UNITED NATIONS, established new procedures
that would represent the interests of these
developing countries.
The ITU originally established a first-come,
first-serve policy regarding the assignment of
geostationary orbits. The World Administrative
Radio Conference of 1985 upheld the continuation
of this policy but also voted to guarantee at
least one geostationary orbit to each country
that was a member of the ITU. The decisions of
the 1985 conference were finalized by another
session in 1988. Although these decisions supported
the interests of the United States in
part—it could continue filling geostationary
orbits—they caused concern for the FCC. The
satellite technology of the United States would
not, after all, be allowed to grow unchecked.
Orbits that the United States had once assumed
would be its to use were reallocated to other
countries. The decisions of the World Administrative
Radio Conferences of the 1980s gave the
FCC even greater cause for regulating the broadcast
industry within the United States and for
being more selective about who is granted geostationary
orbits and a piece of a broadcast
industry that by the year 2000 was expected to
bring in more than $10 billion annually.
Public Broadcasting
Besides investigating developing technologies,
the government and the FCC find themselves
revisiting issues that have received
attention from Congress, the broadcasting
industry, and the public. One such issue is public
television.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB) was established in 1967 as the official,
nongovernment allocator of federal money to
public television and radio stations across the
United States. In 1992, less than 30 years after its
creation, the corporation became a political
issue for conservatives who objected to the content
and perceived philosophy of public programming
and to its partial reliance on U.S. tax
dollars.
The attacks began after the House of Representatives
approved a bill in December 1991 that
would increase spending for the corporation
from $825 million to $1.1 billion in a three-year
period (H.R. Res. 2977, 102d Congress, 1st Sess.
[1991]). (The bill was also passed by the Senate
and signed into law in August 1992.) Political
conservatives claimed that public broadcasting
had a liberal bias, a bloated budget, and offensive
programming. Complaints ranged from
protests about two frank Public Broadcasting
Service (PBS) specials on homosexuality,
Tongues Untied and The Lost Language of the
Cranes, to a claim that the Children’s Television
Network program Sesame Street was educationally
ineffective and no better than network
cartoons.
Public broadcasting claimed that without
federal funding through the CPB, its more than
1,000 television and radio stations would cease to
exist. Most experts agree that this is not true.
Only 14 percent of the operating costs for public
broadcasting is supplied by the federal
government; the remainder comes from corporations,
member donations, and other sources. In
1995, the CPB allocated $285.6 million to public
broadcasting, and since 1968, Congress has budgeted
more than $4 billion to that concern. Yet, if
these funds were cut off, public broadcasting,
although wounded, probably would survive.
Polls showed that most people like public television
and want it to continue, but as opposition
gathers in Congress and the Senate, it appears
that if public broadcasting is to continue, it may
have to do so without federal funding.
Children
There are other concerns surrounding children
and television than whether Big Bird can
make it without federal support. Radio and television
reach no audience more impressionable
than a country’s youth, and many controversies
surround the exposure of children to sex and
violence on television.
Another perennial issue of concern for parents
and others is the amount of exposure children
have to television; time spent in front of the
television might be better spent exercising the
body and the mind. It is frequently argued that
not enough educational programming is available
to children. Since the inception of broadcast
programming, education has always been considered
an important aspect of it. The Children’s
Television Act (47 U.S.C.A. § 303a et seq.) was
enacted in 1990 in an effort to put more educational
programming on television. The response
of broadcasters has been sluggish, prompting a harsh hearing before Congress in 1993. Despite
this legislation, some maintain that next to
nothing has been done to remedy the quality of
children’s television, which House Telecommunications
Subcommittee chairman Edward J.
Markey (D-MA) referred to as “the video equivalent
of a Twinkie.”
Minorities
As of 1978, only one percent of all radio and
television stations in the United States were run
by minorities. In an attempt to diversify broadcasting,
the FCC adopted rules that year giving
preferential treatment to minorities regarding
applications for new station licenses and in taking
over failed stations (47 U.S.C.A. § 309). During
the Reagan administration, this reform was
nearly killed, but Congress saved it.Again, during
the GEORGE H. W. BUSH administration, an
attempt to stop the FCC was launched, this time
when the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT asked the
Supreme Court to rule against the new FCC
guidelines. The effort to block reform met its final
failure in 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled 5
to 4 to uphold the constitutionality of race-based
licensing. The Court held that such AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION is allowable in the broadcasting market
if its purpose is to “serve important governmental
objectives” (Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v.
F.C.C., 497 U.S. 547, 110 S. Ct. 2997, 111 L. Ed.
2d 445). Still, in 1990, fewer than five percent of
all radio and television licenses were held by
minorities.
Equal opportunity employment has also
become a very important consideration in the
process of renewing broadcasting licenses. The
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) reviews all applications
closely to ensure that radio and television stations
have provided an opportunity for the
employment of minority groups. If any party,
such as the NAACP, calls into question the practices
of a station, a petition to deny can be filed.
If the station cannot provide proof of compliance
with equal opportunity standards, it can be
denied renewal of its license.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Congress overhauled the telecommunications
industry in 1996 with the enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (47 U.S.C.A. §§151 et seq.).
This statute made a number of major changes to
laws governing the telecommunications industry.
Among these were deregulatory measures,
including provisions allowing local phone companies,
long-distance companies, and cable
companies to compete over the same services.
Another provision requires television manufacturers
to include circuitry that allows parents to
screen out programming they do not wish their
children to view, such as programs featuring
violence.
Congress intended for the act to facilitate
competition in a variety of areas of the telecommunications
market. Several of its provisions
have failed. Rival telecommunications companies
did not immediately enter each other’s markets,
so consumers did not receive cost-savings
benefits caused by the competition. FCC deregulation
rules, according to many commentators,
have been obscure and ineffective, leading to
several court challenges. Many of the problems
have involved local and long-distance telephone
companies, some of which have begun to offer
“package” deals with local telephone use, longdistance
plans, and INTERNET access. Nevertheless,
the telecommunications industry between
2000 and 2003 has been in economic turmoil,
with several companies ordering massive layoffs
or filing for BANKRUPTCY.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
also been the subject of several court challenges.
Title V of the Telecommunications Act, the
Communications Decency Act of 1996, sought
to protect minors from exposure to indecent
materials transmitted over the Internet. The
Supreme Court, in a highly debated case, struck
down most of those provisions on First Amendment
grounds in Reno v. American Civil Liberties
Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed.
2d 874 (1997). The Telecommunications Act
also included so-called “signal bleed” provisions,
requiring cable operators either to scramble
channels containing sexually explicit materials
or to limit programming on these channels to
certain hours. The Supreme Court likewise
struck down these requirements as impermissible
content-based restrictions in violation of the
First Amendment in United States v. Playboy
Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 120 S.
Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2000).
FURTHER READINGS
Carter, T. Barton et al. 2000. Mass Communications Law in a
Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul,Minn.:West.
Flint, Joe. 1993. “Congress’ Message to Broadcasters: Get
Your Children’s Act Together (House Telecommunications
Subcommittee Hearings).” Broadcasting and Cable
(March 15).
Jessell, Harry A. 1995. “Compliance Pays Off at License
Renewal Time, Lawyers Say.” Broadcasting and Cable
(April 17).
—. 1990.“FCC Begins to Implement Children’s TV Law
(Federal Communications Commission on Children’s
Television).” Broadcasting and Cable (October 29).
Lively, Donald. E. et al. 1997. Communications Law: Media,
Entertainment, and Regulation. Cincinnati, Ohio:
Anderson.
Straubel, Michael S. 1992. “Telecommunication Satellites
and Market Forces: How Should the Geostationary
Orbit Be Regulated by the FCC?” North Carolina Journal
of International Law and Commercial Regulation 17
(winter).
CROSS-REFERENCES
American Civil Liberties Union; Cable Television; Censorship;
Courtroom Television Network; Fairness Doctrine;
Federal Communications Commission; First Amendment;
Freedom of Speech; Mass Communications Law; Telecommunications;
Television.