Having the freedom of the press and other media communication doesn't necessarily mean laws that control signal-broadcasting are a violation of any rights.
They are, after-all, restrictions on the use of public property (the space near earth the signal goes through)
Just because you have the freedom to express yourself in front of a bunch of people doesn't mean the government has the legal obligation to supply you with the means to do it, ie: you don't have a right to a microphone, electricity, and an auditorium full of people to hear you
Nor do you have the freedom to walk into peoples homes and shout your message (which broadcasting a signal is, essentially):
Broadcast signals bombard everyone with electromagnetic waves (the messages).. no, you can't hear it, you need a mechanical/electronic device for that, but not being able to physically perceive it doesn't mean the signal isn't there.
It's in the government's interest to control the mediums to ensure that they can sell the privilege of using it to big corporations for millions and make them only use the channel to say what the government wants them to say.
In my opinion.. this is wrong, I think the spectrum should be as free as air, with never any limitations on receiving signals, and ideally minimal limitations on sending signals (except for ones that follow a long path through the air).
I view the appearance of the Internet as the closest thing to that which has happened so far..
the signal's almost free, it can go around the world a few times, and it's easy for many to get access to it...
only problem: bandwidth = bottleneck.
-Mysidia the insane @k5+SN
[ Parent ]