Reply #56: One might argue that satellite space and the public airwaves are regulated differently now...

[cascadiance]

... and one is defined as a "commons" that the public owns and the other doesn't. I would argue that that notion is rather arbitrary, and that the satellite air space is more recently defined by conservatively controlled communications agencies than the agencies that defined the over the airwaves station licenses and the fairness doctrine, etc. in earlier times. So I would argue that the meaning of one being "private" and the other being "public" is a rather arbitrary one (and one that could be changed in the future with a different administration and congress).

You could conceptually argue that though some folks "own" the satellites that are sent up into orbit, that there are other elements of that equation are owned by "the people" or at least other entities. First of all, the methodology of sending a satellite up into orbit now is through various government owned entities like the shuttle or Russia's spacecraft. Now the private sector is getting into launch vehicles soon too, but arguably the means to put it up there is already something the public provides to these companies.

And one might argue that the geostationary orbit area above one's country could be claimed to be owned by the country it is positioned over, or at least the commons of the world community, and not specifically owned by any one company. Therefore either the country or the world community should have some say on how that space is used. Those orbital areas aren't a limitless resource.

And if the FCC starts trying to regulate the content such as obscenity laws applying to these services to go after Howard Stern, etc., then one could argue that the basis they use to claim they have the right through the FCC to do that should also be available to be used to apply fairness standards to the same media at some point too.