Abstract
In 1969, public outrage derailed a bill providing that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") could not consider competing applications for broadcast licenses unless it first found that renewal of the incumbent's license would not be in the public interest. 1 Citizen groups claimed that eliminating comparative challenges to incumbent broadcasters was "back-door racism" and reinforced the under-representation of minorities in broadcasting. 2 They decried the bill as a "vicious . . . attempt to limit the efforts of the black community to challenge the prevailing racist practices of the vast majority of TV stations." 3 When the FCC thereupon issued a policy statement adopting a similar reform of the comparative renewal process, it was reversed by the D.C. Circuit. 4 Broadcasting was still the keystone of the FCC's regulatory framework at the time. The Commission's role in parceling out radio and television licenses was seen by many public interest groups as critical in the fight for equality of representation and diversity of views. 5 Yet other FCC observers questioned the efficacy of the FCC's role. 6 The debate over the proper license renewal process resulted in hundreds of law review pages 7 and numerous sharply-worded opinions. 8 Without even a nod at all these years of controversy, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act," "new Act," or "Act") 9 eliminated the traditional comparative renewal hearing for broadcast licenses and permitted the extension of license terms to eight years. 10 In the shadow of the explicit ...