The word "regulation" is one that makes many journalists and broadcasters nervous, yet the reality is that in almost every country of the world someone decides who may broadcast and on what frequency. The main argument in favour of having such a body is that the airwaves are a finite resource. It is a matter of national policy how they are distributed - unlike newspaper publishing, for example, which can be largely determined by what the public chooses to read. If there were no statutory allocation of frequencies, then anyone with a large and strong transmitter could drown out a broadcaster with a weaker signal simply by broadcasting on an adjacent frequency. Hence broadcasting regulation, when carried out properly, is not a means of censorship but of ensuring that a variety of voices are heard.
There is a growing argument that in the age of satellite broadcasting, digital technology and convergence between broadcasting and telecommunications the old rationale for regulation has become redundant. Now, it is argued, there are enough channels for everyone to have their say. But the reality is that most of the audience for broadcasting still uses the old technologies - often a battery-powered or even clockwork transistor radio, or an ordinary terrestrial TV set. Satellite technology may be more widely available than before, but community and small private broadcasters (not to mention public national broadcasters) still depend on the old ways.
The frequencies available within any one country will be allocated, after negotiation, by the International Telecommunications Union. How they are then distributed to broadcasters within the country will vary enormously. An example of modern thinking on the issue comes from South Africa, where the Constitution provides for the existence of an independent regulatory body. The South African Communications Regulatory Authority (formerly the Independent Broadcasting Authority) has responsibility for regulating broadcasters in three sectors: public, private and community. It is unusual for a regulatory body to have authority over public broadcasting, but this has the advantage that it should allow the development of a coherent national broadcasting policy. The US Federal Communications Commission also has overall responsibility for frequency allocation, but that is in a situation where there is very little public broadcasting. In Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is answerable to Parliament, while a separate body, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, is responsible for regulating private broadcasting.
It is now generally recognized that broadcasting licences should be allocated by an independent publicly accountable body, according to pre-determined criteria. A regulatory body will often incorporate a complaints procedure, which may allow it to impose sanctions on broadcasters for breach of the terms of their licence. In extreme cases, the sanction would be to refuse to renew a licence after its term had expired, or even to revoke it before the term had ended.
All this is relevant in an election context, since a broadcasting regulator already carries out some of the functions that an electoral supervisory body may wish to assume in relation to the media. It may be more practical, therefore, for the broadcasting regulator itself to play that role.
