Key Opinion
D. Rutledge
Guest Columnist
news@lbknews.com
In an era where information flows faster than ever, the government’s role in shaping public discourse feels increasingly anachronistic—and uneven. For decades, we’ve treated the electromagnetic spectrum—the “public airwaves” used for radio, TV, and wireless communications—as a sacred commons, tightly regulated by bodies like the FCC to ensure “public interest.” Yet this well-intentioned stewardship has often morphed into bureaucratic inertia, stifling innovation while generating little tangible benefit for taxpayers. Meanwhile, the real powerhouses of modern media—algorithms powering social feeds, search results, and recommendation engines—operate in a Wild West of opacity and unchecked influence. The solution? Sell off the airwaves to unleash market-driven progress, and pivot government oversight to where it matters most: mandating transparency and accountability in algorithms. This isn’t about deregulation for its own sake; it’s about reallocating scarce regulatory resources to protect democracy in the 21st century.
Why Sell the Public Airwaves? Let the Market Breathe
The airwaves aren’t infinite; they’re a finite resource, like land or oil, with immense economic value. Governments worldwide, including the U.S., have already dipped into auctions—raising over $200 billion since 1994 for spectrum licenses—and it’s time to go all in. Privatizing the remaining public holdings would inject vitality into an industry that’s been coasting on outdated rules.
First, efficiency and innovation would soar. Under public management, spectrum allocation is a top-down slog: the FCC doles out licenses based on vague “public interest” criteria, often favoring incumbents like broadcasters who sit on underutilized bands while 5G and beyond beg for bandwidth. Private ownership flips this. Companies racing to monetize spectrum—think telecom giants or startups building satellite networks—have every incentive to repurpose it dynamically. We’ve seen this in mobile data: auctioned spectrum fueled the smartphone revolution, dropping costs and expanding access. Why hobble wireless broadband with the same relic rules that once micromanaged three TV networks?
Second, it’s a fiscal windfall without the strings. A full auction could net hundreds of billions more, funding everything from infrastructure to debt reduction—without raising taxes. Critics decry “giving away public assets to corporations,” but that’s a straw man: auctions ensure competitive bidding, and safeguards like open-access requirements can prevent monopolies. More importantly, privatization ends the government’s role as media arbiter. No more FCC meddling in content.
Finally, it levels the playing field for underserved communities. Public spectrum has historically underserved rural areas, where broadcasters prioritize urban ad dollars. Private markets, hungry for growth, would deploy spectrum where demand is—rural 5G for telemedicine, urban mmWave for VR. The result? Faster, cheaper connectivity for all, democratizing access without government picking winners.
Selling the airwaves isn’t abandonment; it’s evolution. The spectrum was never meant to be a perpetual government fiefdom but a tool for progress. By auctioning it off, we trade outdated paternalism for agile capitalism.
But Why Regulate Algorithms? The New Gatekeepers Demand Oversight
If privatizing airwaves shrinks government’s media footprint, regulating algorithms expands it—strategically—into the digital domain where influence is concentrated and consequences are global. Algorithms aren’t neutral code; they’re the invisible curators of what billions see, shaping opinions, elections, and even revolutions. Left unregulated, they amplify the worst of us; with smart rules, they can elevate the best.
Consider the stakes: Facebook’s algorithm once boosted divisive content to juice engagement, contributing to events like the Rohingya genocide or January 6th. Google’s search tweaks can bury truths or spotlight fakes. These aren’t accidents—they’re profit-maximizing designs, often black-boxed to evade scrutiny. Traditional airwave regs ensured diverse voices and fair play; today, algorithms demand similar guardrails, not to censor but to enforce transparency.
A targeted regulatory framework could include…
• Mandatory Audits and Disclosure: Require platforms to publish algorithm “nutrition labels”—explaining how recommendations prioritize content (e.g., “This feed boosts 70% engagement-driven posts”). Independent auditors could stress-test for biases, much like financial regs probe banks.
• Bias Mitigation Standards: Algorithms affecting public spheres (news, ads, hiring) must prove fairness, with penalties for systemic harms like racial skews in loan approvals or echo chambers fueling polarization. Think EU-style GDPR but for code, with opt-outs for users to tweak feeds.
• Liability for Harms: Shift from Section 230’s blanket immunity to accountability—platforms liable if algorithms foreseeably spread misinformation (e.g., deepfakes in elections). This incentivizes ethical design without chilling speech.
Why now? Algorithms wield airwave-level power but without the checks. Privatizing spectrum cedes control there, but digital realms demand intervention because markets alone won’t self-correct externalities like societal division. Regulation here isn’t nanny-state overreach; it’s enlightened self-interest, ensuring tech serves people, not just shareholders.
The Balanced Path Forward
Selling public airwaves while regulating algorithms strikes a Goldilocks balance: minimal interference where markets thrive, firm hand where they falter. It honors free enterprise’s innovative spark—unleashing spectrum for a hyper-connected world—while safeguarding the public square from algorithmic chaos. Skeptics might cry “inconsistency,” but that’s the point: tailor rules to the medium. In 2025, with AI agents curating our realities, clinging to broadcast-era policies is folly. Let’s auction the air, audit the code, and build a media ecosystem that’s freer, fairer, and future-proof. The public interest? It’s not in hoarding waves—it’s in wielding wisdom where the waves of data crash hardest.
