My two cents.

Isn't one of the prime functions of a local TV station providing a public service? And if it is, shouldn't station licenses be assigned with an eye to public service rules instead of money?

Does the dollar sign have to be posted everywhere nowadays?

According to a recent editorial in The New York Times ("Don't Let the Broadcasters Off Free"), U.S. broadcasters could be receiving "a gift worth perhaps $40 billion ... in the form of free licenses to broadcast digital television programs and services." The Times continued, "Critics charge that [public service programming] offerings are now so skimpy that Congress would be justified in charging them for existing frequencies, let alone for any new frequencies."

The Times sees this as purely a money problem. Never mind trying to enforce the stations' public service obligations; money seems to be more important.

According to the Times, "Congress need only look to Britain for a model by which digital licenses can be auctioned without wounding the broadcasters."

And one need only look to Britain to realize why TV station licenses should not be auctioned. After Channel 3 frequencies were auctioned in 1992, even former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had promoted the auctions, spoke out against the results. The British auction changed the television landscape for the worse to the point that audiences turned away from Channel 3 TV fare in droves, causing a stir even among advertisers. A headline in the British trade paper Media International announced that "Commercial giant [Channel 3] is under attack from advertisers for falling audience levels. "In a 1993 article Video Age wondered about "Channel 3 with three owners," when traditionally there had been 15. And in the wake of the aforementioned U.K. Broadcasting Act, The Economist wrote that now "the government wants to dismantle these complicated rules."

As far as the new auction for Channel 5 is concerned, no one can even guess the outcome. However, The Economist predicts that the government, after great debate, will promise a review in perhaps five years' time.

So what's my solution? Well, the first step, of course, is to grant free new frequencies for digital television broadcasts only to stations that perform or promise to perform a public service. The usual outcry is over children's programming, but what about helping the political reformers with free commercial time for candidates' election campaigns?

In this case the auction for the new frequencies would be decided based on merit, not money. A second step would be to limit the free assignment of the new frequencies to television programming, be it regular digital or higher definition service. Space for other broadcast services should be auctioned for a fee. After all, why should broadcasters receive privileges for non-public service businesses?

Ultimately, the FCC could be doing TV stations a favor, forcing them not to become video jukeboxes by using strict public service obligations as a quid pro quo. By fulfilling their local public service obligations, stations will continue to prosper, for localism is the sole remedy against increased competition from cable and satellite TV networks. In effect, public service is a guarantee of the station's future; don't sell it out!