Will we ask the question, why have an FCC that doles out broadcast spectrum space at all? Why should the government, through a political process, decide who or who cannot exercise electronic freedom of speech? Why the government should establish the limits on that freedom of speech with codes of conduct enforced by fines and loss of license?

Why do we uphold the power of the FCC to, for example, give Free Radio Santa Cruz's channel over to the REPEATER of a pseudo-religious broadcaster, forcing FRSC to find another uninhabited area of the spectrum in which to squat? Why can't MORE stations created by the people themselves spring up as FRSC did, and why can't the government respect their right to exist as long as they interfere with no pre-existing station or signal?

Why do so many people seem so eager to trade one set of rules for government oversight of broadcasting for another set? Shouldn't there be an examination of whether government oversight itself isn't the problem, or at least a key contributor to it?

Why is it that the controversy over media ownership looks more like factions fighting over the levers of power and who gets to pull them to reward friends and punish enemies, rather than any kind of push to advance the interests of "fairness" or "the people"?

Who will speak the truth of these questions to power?