Quality & Quantity: In the Air

When deciding if ground-based radio systems are still worth their maintenance work and fees, it's incredibly important to note the relevance and uses that still pertain to such technology. Although thought as being deprecated tech, the technology of such is often paired with other electronics and most commonly, motor vehicles. In such vehicles, the primary use of such technology is for music listening; in order to gauge the relevance of such listening numbers, one may find it quite troublesome.
 However, in order for such listeners to even participate in radio based music, FM and AM radio stations are required in order to listen. From the earliest recorded example of FCC radio station record keeping, it is seen that as of December, 1968, only 1944 FM stations were in recognized production. By January of 1970, that number jumped all the way up to 2083 FM stations and 4269 AM Stations. This trend continues up until the early 2000s with the amount slightly increasing only just above the 13000 mark, with that year having 4772 AM stations, 6089 FM stations, and 2259 FM educational stations. However, towards the eldest portions of the late aughts, radio station numbers began to rise suddenly. Within 2008 the number broke the 14000 mark with 14003 stations and would only continue to grow. Within the year of 2012, the numbers finally broke 15000 and, with the most recent recordings in late 2017, the numbers seem to have settled just above that at 15503.

As shown, although showing signs of slowing, radio and its accompanying stations are lucrative enough and beneficial enough for not only the continued maintenance of, but also continued construction of new stations. Although striking, this information isn't be-all in terms of evidence for the continuation of radio. Even from its inception, the litigious rights of such communications venues have been in great question, with the right in question being that of the first amendment.
On April 2nd, 1969, a case was brought to the Supreme Court on the rights of the Red Lion Broadcasting Company in their refusal of "free reply time" (Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC US 2) by a Fred J. Cook against allegations posed by a Reverend Billy James Hargis on their station. Posed within the closing by the Supreme Court judges was that, while under the first amendment, Reverend Billy James Hargis was allowed to make such inflammatory remarks against Cook, but the format in which he did so juxtaposed him over Cook and created an unfair environment which jeopardized the Fairness Doctrine. In short, the Supreme Court says that:

Just as the Government may limit the use of sound-amplifying equipment potentially so noisy that it drowns out civilized private speech, so may the Government limit the use of broadcast equipment. The right of free speech of a broadcaster, the user of a sound truck, or any other individual does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others. (Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC US 28)

Although the insults were legal, the ground in which they were said was not. Radio may be a great source of information and venue for the disbursement of said information, but it is in its greatest form limited. With the majority of freely accessible and commonly used radio formats being one-way, it's difficult for more contemporary and highly contested issues to find great service and deliberation through that technology.

Perhaps confounded or constrained, for better or for worse, towards its optimum output, radio has a legacy and an active future that in all stances may change its most known visage. Not only the idea of radio and the common usage of radio, but the word itself; the word itself in a great wide web.

 An addendum on information regarding the fairness doctrine and how it may pertain to the above case.