Scarcity of Spectrum: Its Meanings and Applications in the U.S., thethe U.K., the Former West Germany, and Japan

全文

(1)﹒廣措典電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 民82 年 1 月頁 53-66. Scarcity of Spectrum: 1ts Meanings and Applications in the U .S. , the U .K. , the Former West Germany , and J apan. Yu . li Li u (劉幼 ~J) * 〈本文節要〉「稀有頻道 J. (Scarcity of Spectrum) 概念是很多國家廣電法規的理. 論基礎 D 基於電波頻道稀有的原則，國際電訊聯盟(l nternational. communication. Tele-. Union) 要求其所有會員國的廣電業者必須申請電台執. 照，並在指定的頻率播音 o. 然而，隨著有線電視、衛星電視等傳播科技的到來，有專家學者指出，稀有頻道理論在今天已不適用，因為閱聽人可從不同媒體得到各種. 資訊，廣電頻道是否稀有因此變得不再重要。然而，也有學者辯稱頻道仍然稀有，因為以電波特性而言，壓縮頻寬科技固然可增加使用的頻道，但是無線廣播電視的頻道仍然有限 D 傳播科技是否真的解決了頻道稀有的問題?本文特以美、英、西. 德、日本回國廣電媒體發展的經驗，探討「稀有頻道」理論在今日的涵. 義。. *本文作者劉幼 5利為國立政治大學廣播電視學系副教授。. .53..

(2) •. IJ責織與電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 民 82 年 1 月. The "scarcity of spectrum" concept is a fundamental rationale for the broadcast regulations of many countries. It assumes that without regulation many people would want to broadcast on the same frequencies. Chaos would resu 1t. To avoid interference , the International Telecommunications Union asks that a11 member states require broadcasters to be government licensed. 1 However, with the emergence of cable and sate l1 ite television , critics argue that scarcity of spectrum no longer exists. Audiences can have unlimited entertainment and information options without disruption to the spectrum. Therefor.e , a key question arises: Is it true that the new communications technologies make. the 是carcity. concept outdated? This paper discusses four countries' experiences with this issue. Generally speaking , scarcity of spectrum is not an issue in Japan . It has been an issue in the United States , the United Kingdom , and the former West Germany , but the three countries now believe new communications technologies may be discrediting the scarcity rationale. The fo11owing is a discussion of how the United States , the United Kingdom , the former West Germany , and Japan perceive this concept today.. THE UNITED ST ATES In the U .S. , "scarcity of spectrum" was the earliest rationale for broadcast regulation , which took the form of a licensing scheme to apportion the frequencies to users. Without governmental allocation of the spectrum', no one could speak electronically without possible chaotic results. Since the Radio Act of 1912 first forbade operation of a radio station without a license , the grounds for governmental regulation of spectrum use by private parties have been frequently challenged. In 1943 , NBC v. U.S. provided the Supreme Court with its first major opportunity to consider why freedom of expression should be treated differently in broadcasting than in other media. 2 ln rejecting the network's argument that the FCC's regulations abridged their right of free expression , the Court reasoned that broadcasting was a limited access medium--the scarcity of a vailable broadcast spectrum restricted the number of stations. Twenty-six years after NBC v. U.S. , the Red Lion decision reasserted channel scarcity as the fundamental reason for requiring greater regulation of broadcasting than of printing. 3 The Court ruled that as a consequence of scarcity , the licensee has no constitutional right to hold a license or to use a frequency for his own purposes to the exclusion of those of his fellow citizens .4 The court stated:. . 54'.

(3) Scarcity of Spectrum It is the right of the viewers and listeners , not the right of the. broadcasters , which is paramoun t....I t is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth w i11 ultimately prevaìl , rather than to countenance monopolizatìon of that market , whether it be by the Government ìtself or a private license .5 Furthermore , the Court held that the government could regulate broadcasters on behalf of other citizens because of the limited frequencies available for broadcastmg. In 1984 , the Supreme Court in a footnote in Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women. Voter~. seemed to beg for a case involving spectrum. issues so it could revisit the status of the spectrum scarcity doctrine in light of the new technologies: The prevaìling rationale for broadcast regulation based on spectrum scarcity has come under increasing critìcism in recent years. Critìcs , including the incumbent chairman of the FCC , charge that with the advent of cable and satellite television technology , communities now have access to such a wide variety of statìons that the scarcity doctrine is obsolete....We are not prepared , however , to reconsider our long-standing approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required .6 Six years later , the Supreme Court addressed the spectrum scarcity doctrine again in Metro Broadcasting , Inc. v. FCç. Writing for the majority upholding the FCC minority preference and distress sale policies , Justice Brennan stated: We have long recognized that "[b]ecause of the scarcity of [electromagnetìc] frequencies , the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium." [Red Lion] The Government's role in distributing the limited number of broadcast licenses is not merely that of "traffic officer ," [NB C]; rather it ìs axiomatìc that broadcasting may be regulated ìn lìght of the rights of the viewìng and listenìng audìence and that "the wìdest possible dissemìnation of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." [AP] Safeguarding the public's right to receive a diversity of views and information over the airwaves is therefore an integral component of the FCC's mission. 7 Throughout the decades , the scarcity rationale has supported many broadcast regulations , but it has also been challenged by the broadcasting industries and some scholars. Mark Fowler and Daniel Brenner attacked the scarcity rationale by saying that "the use of spectrum scarcity to justify public interest determinations over .55..

(4) • )J資格與電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 民 82 年 1 月. licensees is fraught with serious logical and empirical infirmities. ,, 8 They argued that scarcity is a relative concept and virtually all goods in society are scarce. They believe that the highest bidder will make the best use of a resource , in this case , the spectrum. With the new communícations technologies and the various choices and alternative media , they say the scarcity rationale is outdated . They suggested the government deregulate the broadcasting media in three stages and replace the public trusteeship model with the marketplace approach. Such debates over the "scarcity of spectrum" are crucial for reaching any conclusion about deregulating some broadcast regulations today .. UNITED KINGDOM As in the United States, when British radío started to develop in the 1920s, the radio spectrum was regarded as a scarce national resource. Scarcity was , in fact , why public service broadcasting was adopted in the United Kingdom. In 1923 , the British government appointed the Sykes Committee to examine the monopolistic structure and unsound operation of the British Broadcasting Company. The. Sykes. Committee. rejected. advertising. as. the. source. of. funding. and. recommended a license fee for all radio receivers. It also asserted that the scarce spectrum was "pub 1i c property" and that it should not be governed by private manufacturers. 9 In 1925 , the Crawford Committee was appointéd to form the permanent structure of British broadcasting and to lay a solid foundation for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) . It recommended that "the broadcasting service should be conducted by a public corporation acting as trustees for the national interes t.,, 10 The Crawford Committee 's recommendation created the BBC as a public corporation governed by a Royal Charter as well as a License and Agreement granted by the Crown and the Home Secretary .11 Lord John Reith , the BBC's first managing director and director-general , also played an important role in shaping the BBC as a public service broadcaste r. Reith observed that "the BBC should be a public service not only in performance but in Constitution. ,, 12 Reith 's vision of broadcasting was based on four principles: assured sources of funding , monopoly , public service , and national coverage. 13 Reith believed that the broadcasting service should be insulated from politics and advertisemen t. In his view , the broadcasting should be socially responsible , and monopoly seemed thc only way to achieve that goa 1. 14 Reith thought that the BBC should be dedicated to the "maintenance of high standards , the provision of the best and the . 56 ..

(5) ﹒廣播典電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 氏 82 年 1 月. The White Paper recognized that because of technological and international developments , some changes in the government's policy towards broadcasting were inevitable . The White Paper emphasized that the government would place the viewers and listeners at the center of broadcasting policy and make sure competition , wider choice , and good quality prevailed in the broadcasting marke t. The BBC's license w i1l expire in 1996 , and it has until then to prepare for the subscription service. The ITV's franchises expired at the end of 1992. In the 1993 auctions , they will face challenges to their franchises. In sum , technological development and trends toward privatization and deregulation in the United Kingdom made the "scarcity" rationale nonfunctiona l. John Keane , Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Professor of Politics at the Polytechnic of Central London , in his book The Media and Democracy 26 Today the British declares that the scarcity argument is no longer valid.'<'u. broadcasters worry more about whether the auctioning and subscription scheme will work than about whether the spectrum will accommodate the growing number of broadcast channels.. THE FORMER. 、司rEST. GERMANY. Scarcity of spectrum could be viewed from three perspectives in the former West Germany: economic , technical , and geographic. The economic situation after World War 11 made investment in broadcasting enormously expensive. The new West German nation was not certain that it could afford to have many broadcasting channels. Besides , scarcity of spectrum limited the number of possible user allocation. This problem was complicated by the strategic location of Germany and the demands for spectrum by the Allies. Eventually the regional states of West Germany were able to organize the difficu 1t allocation process. Politically speaking , before 1984 , West Germany only accepted public corporation broadcasters. Its broadcasting goal was "denazification ," "decentralization ," and "democratization .,, 27 The reason for these priorities can be traced back to the historical origins of the German broadcasting. Under the Nazi regime , German radio was used for propaganda purposes. After World War 11 , the Allies helped to develop German broadcasting and freed it from state contro l. In 1950 , nine regional and two federal broadcasting services joined to form a cooperative. broadcasting. association ,. Arbeitsgemeinschaft. der. Offentlich-. rechtlichen Rundfunkansta 1t en der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (the ARD) . The ARD was to operate the nationwide broadcasting system. In 1961 , the federal govern. 58 ..

(6) .用軟. Scarcity of Spectrum ment attempted to launch a second TV network , but the Federal Constitutional Court declared the attempt unconstitutiona l. Meanwhile , some publishers also expressed interest in setting up private , commercial television stations. 2 8 The Court said that because of the scarcity of spectrum and the powerful influence of the broadcasting medía , ít was dangerous for the medía to be controlled by market forces . The tíme had not come for private broadcasting. But the West German people wanted more broadcast services , so the Lander (state) stations worked together to establish a second public network , Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) , in 1963. 29 However , when West Germany encountered the cable and satellite technologíes , the scarcity of spectrum rationale was challenged. 1n 1981 , the Federal Constitutional Court heard a case in which a private applicant asked to obtain a broadcast license. The Court indicated that private broadcasting licenses might be permissíble in the future when the new technologies of cable and satellite became widely available. The Court also instructed the regional governments to consider new media laws by which to regulate prívate stations and ensure balance , diversity and pluralism in local programmmg. 30 On November 4 , 1986 , the Federal Constitutional Court , ruling on a broadcasting law from Lower Saxony , established the constitutional basis for a dual broadcasting system in West Germany. The Court decided that public and private broadcasting could co-exist and noted that the public stations had the responsibility to meet the audience 's basic needs , defined as comprising information , culture , entertainment , and minoríty programs. 31 The Court said , "As long as the fulfillment of this responsibility by the public corporations is effectively guaranteed , it would appear justifiable not to require private broadcasters to meet the same requirements with regard to range of programs and degree of diversity. ,, 32 The private stations could also present mass appeal programs as long as they were not biased. 1n April , 1987 , the leaders and prime ministers of the state governments signed an inter-state agreement on the restructuring of broadcasting. 1t ensured a secure financial basis for public broadcasting and allowed the development of private broadcastmg systems. 33. JAPAN Japan views "scarcity of spectrum " from geographic , economic , technical , and political perspectives. Geographical 旬， Japan consists of four large islands and hundreds of smaller ones . Eighty percent of J apan 's landscape is hills or mountains. Although most Japanese live in cities , Japan still spends a great amount of money on . 59 ..

(7) ﹒廣播典電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 氏 82 年 1 月. relay transmitters to reach everyone in the nation. 34 In the 1920s , thousands of radio amateurs applied for licenses to operate stations. The Japanese government did not want to operate the stations itself because of the enormous cos t. Duly considering its insulating topography , high population density , and national unity , the Japanese government decided to develop a non-profit , non-commercial , centralized broadcasting system. The Ministry of Communications announced a "one station per area" plan and asked all interested parties to submit a joint application. In this way , the government could stress the importance of public service in broadcasting and avoid choosing among applicants. 35 In 1926 , the Ministry of Communications established three radio stations in Tokyo , Nagoya , and Osaka . The three stations soon merged to form a single public service corporation , the Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK , or Japan Broadcasting System). During World War. 口，. NHK became a propaganda tool for the Japanese govern-. men t. After the War , NHK was under the control of the General Headquarters of Allied Forces (GHQ). In 1946 , a new Japanese government was formed , and a new constitution went into effect the following yea r. A few months later , GHQ instructed the Ministry of Communications to revise its laws and regulations regarding broadcasting. 36 As a result , in 1949 , the Ministry of Communications was abolished and the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) was established . The Broadcast Law was passed in December 1949. It went into effect in 1950 , laying the foundation of Japan 's dual broadcasting system byallowing private broadcasting to exist for the first time . The Law dissolved the old NHK , and created a new corporation using the same name. The law mandated that no government or political parties could interfere with the new NHK 's programming; the corporation was to be managed by the general public . The Law also permitted private broadcasting to carry advertising . Before 1957 , all television station licenses were temporary. In June 1957 , the MPT announced a frequency-allocation plan for television stations. It allowed NHK to set up its outlets throughout the nation , but forbade private broadcasters to form a 1, network. 37. The licensing standards for television stations were determined by MPT's subordinate , the Radio Regulatory Commission. Recognizing the scarcity of frequencies an. .60..

(8) Scarcity of Spectrum vice in the community. NHK stations , however , were exempt from the second requireme肘，. and their license applications were generally given priority because they were. supposed to serve the public interest nationwide. 38 Li censes had to be renewed every three years . As of 1989 , there were 48 private VHF television stations and 55 private UHF television stations in Japan. NHK 's TV channel for general programming has 3,490 transmitters; its education channel , 3,4 14 transmitters. 39 Today in most parts of Japan , there are two NHK TV channels (general and educational) and at least three commercial television channels. ln densely populated cities , eight to ten television stations are available. As for radio , most cities have three NHK networks (AM general , AM educational , and FM music) , and five or six commercial radio stations. 40 Although the demand for broadcast licenses had been strong , "scarcity of spectrum" is not a hot issue in Japan. Scarcity of available frequencies does exist in some mountainous areas and urban areas full of skyscrapers. Even though most areas are free of this problem , the Japanese government still encourages joint applications to avoid the competition that might lead broadcasters to compromise program quality. Today the Japanese audience is also served by innovations like cable television and direct broadcasting service; scarcity of spectrum complaints seem silenced by these new media. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS The governments of many countries once used the "scarcity of spectrum" rationale for regulating broadcasting. As Chart 1 illustrates , the United States has chosen to have a largely private broadcasting system , but broadcasters must serve the public interest in return for their privilege to use the airwaves. The "scarcity of spectrum" rationale has been debated more than a half century by broadcast policy-makers: the courts , the FCC , Congress , the industry , special interest group and scholars. ln the early 1980s , Fowler and Brenner promoted the marketplace of ideas rationale as they believed the "scarcity " rationale obsolete. Today , even the FCC believes that new communication technologies can offer people a myriad of program choices and thereby nul 1i fy the "scarcity" argumen t. Nevertheless , some conservatives still argue that the airwaves remain scarce , because the new forms of media are not free of charge for the audience . ln the United Kingdom , airwaves were once regarded as public property. When radio technology emerged in the United Kingdom in the 1920s , the British government decided to adopt public service broadacasting because of the scarce spectrum . . 61 ..

(9) ﹒廣播典電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 氏 82 年 1 月. Chart 1: Summary of the Perception of Scarcity Concept in Four Countries. 河之. L. K.. L. S. West Germany. Japan. pubJ ic-private dual system. pub Jic -private dual system. Home Off ic e: BBC IBA: ITV. individual Lander (state). MPT. XHK: Jicense fee Private: ads. broadcast system. private/commerciaJ BBC- ITV duopoly publ ic/PBS. regulator. FCC. .. funding. private : ads PBS: gov't funds , underwriting , membership. B眩. I icense fee ITV: ads. I icense fee & ads. scarclty concept. trusteeship vs. marketp lace. pu bl ic service vs multipl ic ity of choices. joint appl ication democratic expectatl on vs vs . mul t iple po I i t ica I & choices economlc Interests. However , in the late 1980s technological advances pushed the government to consider holding auctions for ITV and transforming the BBC into a subscription service. The British government 's broadcasting policy has swayed from public service to consumer sovereignty . Currently , the British believe that the days of mu 1t iplicity of choice w i1l come only if they allow more access to the marke t. The "scarcity" rationale seems to impress no one . Recognizing broadcasting as a powerful and scarce resource , the West German government after World War 11 feared letting the marketplace run the broadcast stations. The government adopted public service broadcasting instead. But , in response to the technological advances of the 1980s , several cases decided by the Federal Constitutional Court undermined the status of public broadcasting. In 1987 , the West German government accepted a dual broadcasting system. Since then , the public stations have to answer the "basic needs" of their audiences , while private stations can produce programs which appeal to the mass audience. Therefore , many Germans believe that the new communication technologies make the "scarcity" rationale outdated. In Japan "scarcity of spectrum" is not even an issue. As shown in Chart 1, the Japanese government encourages joint applications by allowing only one station per area. Genera l1 y speaking , the Japanese are satisfied with NHK 's programming. They .62..

(10) Scarcity of Spectrum also have many other choices such as cable and DBS. Therefore , the Japanese government 's encouragement of. joint. applications , the. enormous costs of. establishing a station , and the Japanese' satisfaction with the existing programs make the "scarcity of spectrum" issue insignificant in Japan. As Fowler and Brenner said , scarcity in the United States is a relative concep t. Politics should not be the key factor in determining whether scarcity exists. Technology and economics have to be considered as well. New media can offer different alternati ves but cannot replace the old precisely. Unlike the free terrestrial broadcast service , viewers must pay for cable television and other new media. Since not everyone can afford this new technology , scarcity of spectrum becomes an issue when existing terrestrial television does not guarantee "fairness ," "impartiality ," and "balance ," and no frequencies are supposedly left for new channels.. NOTES 1. Albert Namurois , Structures and Organization of Brðadcasting in the Framework. of Radiocommunications (Geneva: EBU Monographs , 1972) 30. 2.NBC v. U.S. , 319 U .S. at 190 , 212 (1 943). 3. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. , v. FCC , 395 U .S. 367 (1969). 4. lbid. , at 389. 5. lbid. , at 390. 6.FCC v. League of W omen Voters 104 S. C t. 3106 , at 3116 (1 984). 7.Metro Broadcasting , Inc. v. FCC 110 S. C t. 2997 , at 3010 (1 990). 8. Mark Fowler & Daniel Brenner , "A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation ," 60 Texas la w Review 207 (1982). 9. Tom Burns , The BBC: Public lnstitution and Private World (London: The Macmi l1 an Press , 1977) 7. 10. Ralph Negrine , "Great Britain: The End of the Public Service Tradition?" The Politics of Broadcasting , ed. Raymond Kuhn (New York: St. Martin 's Press , 1985) 17. and Crawford Committee of Enquiry , 1926 , quoted in the Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting (Chairman: Lord Annan , HMSO Cmnd. 6753 , 1977) 9. 11. Burton Paulu , Television and Radio in the United Kingdo I!! (Minneapolis: Univ . of Minnesota Press , 1981) 28-29. 12. John Reith , 1nto the Wind (London: Hodder & Stoughton , 1949) 102; see also Paulu 8. 13. Reith 99; see also Negrine (1 985) 18. . 63 ..

(11) ﹒廣播典電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 氏 82 年 1 月. 14. Beveridge Committee , "Memorandum from the Right Honorable the Lord Reith ," Report of the Broadcasting Committee 1949: Appendix H: Memoranda Submitted to the Committee (Cmd . 8117) 364; see also Paulu 14. 15. Bruns 36. 16. Jeremy Tunstall , The Media in Britain (London: Constable , 1983) 33-34. Also see Asle Rolland and Helge Ostbye , "Breaking the Broadcasting Monopoly ," New Media Politics: Comparative Perspectives in Western Europe , eds. Dennis McQuail and Karen Siune (London: Sage , 1986) 115-129. 17. Ralph Negrine , Politics and the Mass Media in Britain (London:. Ro叫 ledge ，. 1989). 102 . 18. Ibid . 19. United Kingdom , Home Office , Report of the Committee on Financing th BBC (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office , July 1986). This report is chaired by Professor Alan Peacock so it is often called the Peacock Repor t. Also see Untied Kingdom , Home Office , Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition , Choice and Quality: The Government's Plans for Broadcasting Legislation (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office , November 1988). This document is often called the 1988 White Pape r. 20 . Ralph negrine , "British Television in an Age of Change ," in Political Economy of Communications , Kenneth Dyson and Peter Humphreys eds . (New York: Routledge , 1990). 2 1. Peacock Report (1 986). 22. Kuhn (1 987) 11-17. 23.Peacock Report 143. 24 . Peacock Report 136-15 1. 25. Negrine (1990). 26. John Keane , The Media and Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press , 1991) 119. 27. Thomas George. Streete扒 "Technocracy. and the Making of Cable. and Television: Discourse , Policy , Politics. Television ，川 unpublished. doctoral dissertation , Uni-. versity of Ill inois at Urbana-Champaign , 1986 , 173-174. 28. Donald R . Browne , Comparing Broadcast System: The Experiences of Six Industrialized Nations (Ames , Iowa : Iowa State University Press , 1989) 195 . 29. Ibid. 30. Christina Holtz-Bacha , "From Public Monopoly to a Dual Broadcasting System in Germany ," European Journal of Communicatiol'l. (Sage , London , Newbury Park and New Delhi , 1991) Vo l. 6 , 223-224 . 3 1. Holtz-Bacha 224. .64..

(12) Scarcity of Spectrum 32.Broadcasting Laws: Document~ on Poli~ics and Society in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn: INTER NATIONES , 1989) 3rd ed . (hereafter West German Broadcasting Law)20-2 1. 33. West Germany Broadcasting Law l. 34. Browne. 303 刁04.. 35. Browne 308-309. 36. Negrine (1985) 274. 37. Kenji Kitatani , "Japan ," !nternational Handbook of Broadcasting Systems , Philip T. Rosen , ed . (New York: Greenwood Press , 1988) 176-177. 38. Browne 332-333. 39.Chin-tien Su , The Press Freedom and Communications Industries in Japan (in Chinese) (Taipei: Chih-liang , 1990) 139-142. 40. Marcellus S. Snow , Marketplace for Telecommunications: Regulation and Deregulation in Industrialized Democracies (New York: Longman , 1986) 21 1.. REFERENCES Broadcasting Laws: Documents on Politics ad Society in the Federal Republic of Germany. 3rd ed. Bonn: INTER NATIONES , 1989. Browne , Donald R. (1 989) Comparing Broadcast Systems: The Experiences of Six Industrialized Nations . Ames , Iowa: Iowa State University Press . Burns , Tom . (1 977) The BBC: Public Institution and Private World. London: The Macmillan Press , 1977. Dyson , Kenneth and Peter Humphreys , eds . (1 990) The Political Economy of Communications: International and European Dimensions. New York: Routledge. FCC v . League of W omen V~ters 104 S. Ct. 3106 (1 984). Fowler , M. and D. Brenner , (1 982) "A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation." 60 Texas La w Review 207. Holtz-Bacha 、 Christina . (1 991) "From Public Monopoly to a Dual Broadcasting System in Germany." European Journal of Communication Vo l. 6 , 223-224. Keane , John. (1 991) The Media and Democracy . Cambridge: Polity Press. Kuhn , Raymond , ed. (1 985). 'I' he. Politics of Broadcasting. New York: S1. Martin's. Press , 1985. Metro Broadcasting , lnc. v. VCC 110 S. C 1. 2997 (1 990). Namuro 悶，. Alber t. (1 972) Structures and Organization of Broadcasting in the Frame.65 ..

(13) • ~優裕典電視﹒. 第一卷第二期. 氏 82 年 1 月. work of Radiocommunications. Geneva: EBU Monographs . NBC v. U.S. 319 U.S . 212 (1 943). Negrine , Ralph. (1989) Politics and the Mass Media in Britain. London: Routledge. -. ed. (1 988) Satellite Broadcasting: The Politics and lmplications of the New Media. London: Routledge. Paulu , Burton. (1 981) Television and Radio in the United Kingdom. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Red Li on Broadcasting Co. , v. FCC 395 U .S. 367 (1 969). Reith , John. (1 949) 1nto the Wind. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Rosen , Philip T. , ed . (1 988) 1nternational Handbook of Broadcasting Systems. New York: Greenwood Press. Snow , Marcellus S. (1 986) Marketplace for Telecommunications: Regulation and Deregulation in lndustrialized Democracies. New York: Longman. Streeter , Thomas George . (1 986) "Technocracy and Television: Discourse , Policy , Politics and the Making of Cable Television ." Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of I1l inois at Urbana-Champaign . Su , Chin-tien. (1 990) The Press Freedom and Communications lndustries in Japan (i n Chinese) Taipei: Chih-liang. Tunstall , Jeremy. (1 983) The Media in Britain. London: Constable.. . 66 ..

(14) Scarcity of Spectrum rejection of the hurtfu l. "15 In the 1950s , the BBC came under harsh criticism for its monopoly and what many people considered its high-brow programming policy. Consequently , many attempts were made to introduce commercial television into the United Kingdom. After successful lobbying , the Television Act was passed in 1954. It established the Independent Broadcasting Authority (I BA) to supervise the independent television stations (ITV).16 Unlike the BBC , the commercial ITV systems are 15 regional , advertiser-supported channels. Since the. 197郎，. advances in communications technology and a change. in the structure of British broadcasting have undermined the status of public broadcasting. 17 Some people have even questioned the principle of the license fees .18 In the 1980s , the United Kingdom faced deregulation and privatization of many industries , including broadcasting. During this time many special reports assessed and evaluated the BBC , and of these , the Peacock Report (1986) and the White Paper (1 988) are the most prominen t. 19 In the Peacock Report , Lord Reith 's vision of the BBC was reversed. The Peacock Committee said that with the new technologies , the proliferation of broadcasting systems would make the "scarcity" rationale inva 1i d .2 o The Committee suggested that since commercially sponsored broadcasting might sacrifice the needs of its audience to meet advertisers' demands , the BBC should become a subscription-funded service. Even so , the number of subscriptions could be used to gauge consumer demand for particular programs moving the BBC twoards a market system based on "consumer sovereignty." Consumer sovereignty implies that "viewers and listeners are the best ultimate judges of their own interests. ,, 21 In other words , consumers would replace the government in determining the programs to be aired. 2 2 In the case of ITV , the Committee said franchise contracts for the ITV systems should be awarded to the ones making the highest bid at an auction. 23 This accomplished , the BBC-ITV duopoly system should then prepare for the next stage of replacing the license fee with a subscription-funded scheme. Hence , in the future , the audience would not have to pay receiver license fees , they services they subscribed to .24. v.: ou1d. only pay for the. The 1988 White Paper sets out proposals for British broadcasting in the 1990s. In addition to reaffirming that the BBC shoul. . 57 ..

(15)