論無線廣電媒體管制之正當性基礎――以「頻譜資源稀有性」理論為中心

An Exploration of the Rationale for Broadcast Regulations: With a Focus on the “Spectrum Scarcity” Theory

傳統上認為無線廣電資訊傳輸所倚賴的頻譜（spectrum）係一種「稀有性」的公共財，政府藉由執照制度規範無線頻譜的利用並建立相關的管制規範，而使得無線廣播電視業者受到——特別是與平面媒體相較——較嚴格的管制。惟此一觀點，向來卻備受學者的質疑與批判，認為隨著通訊科技的進步所帶來的頻譜運用效率的提升，「頻譜資源稀有性」此一概念已不合時宜，並進而主張在今日數位匯流的年代，法制上應將無線廣電的管制密度與其他傳媒的管制做水平化的齊一處理。然而，經過仔細反思與辯證幾位「否定『頻譜資源稀有性』」的代表性論者提出的言說和譬喻後，本文認為，頻譜資源稀有性，縱使在媒體匯流（media convergence）的今日，其正當化無線廣電媒體管制體系礎石的地位，仍未被澈底撼動。此外，無線廣電之所以受到高度管制，除了頻譜資源稀有的考量外，廣播電視具有的大規模資訊傳布的影響力，以及廣泛滲透到家庭且為未成年人容易接近使用等特質，加上大眾對於媒體作為社會公器，扮演「公共論壇」角色的期待，基本上政府對無線廣電採取較高度的規範管理，以擔保視聽傳媒的運作切合公眾的利益與需要，實有其正當性。是以，現行法制下對無線廣電與其他傳媒進行差異化規管的作法，短期內並無必然得改弦更張之理。

Traditionally, it has been affirmed that among all intermediaries, broadcasting is subject to the most government regulations. The “scarcity rationale”－there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate－has long been invoked to be the fundamental justification for broadcast regulations. As a result, while leaving the other media (such as print industry) with fully protected autonomy to minimize governmental intrusion, it is legitimate to provide less free speech protection to the broadcast licensee. Nevertheless, the aforesaid scarcity rational all along bears the fiercest attack, albeit that it was reiterated over and over again by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in Taiwan. Some critics insist that the scarcity rationale is a false start in contemplating the communications law because the electromagnetic spectrum is not so extraordinary that the government must be bestowed the special regulatory power regarding broadcastings. In addition, the breath-taking advancement of digital and broadband technologies has led to the “media convergence,” which means “the coming together of different technologies to provide similar [media] service.” Thus the current asymmetric legal framework that allows the state to regulate traditional broadcasting stations more stringent than other media should be overturned. After a critical review, this paper concludes that given that the problem of interference of air-waves has not been fully solved, the scarcity rationale, at least for the status quo, is still valid. Furthermore, the magnitude of the impact, the pervasiveness into homes and accessibility for the children that broadcasters have brought about, as well as the function of the “public forum” that broadcasters cast, all support the needs for a stronger broadcast regulation to some extent. Accordingly, this trend of technological convergence should not turn the existing asymmetric regulatory regime into completely disfavored.