20 S.C. 128\02 if the entire radio spectrum is utilized in the present state of commercially acceptable technology. It was this fact, and the chaos which ensued from permitting anyone to use any frequency at whatever power level he wished, which made necessary the enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 …’ The Court had earlier explained the need for a regulatory authority:‘Before 1927 the allocation of frequencies was left entirely to the private sector, and the result was chaos. It quickly became apparent that broadcast frequencies constituted a scarce resource whose use could be regulated and rationalized only by the Government. Without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacophony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard. Consequently the Federal Radio Commission was established …’ (See 395 US 367 at 375-376).” In the case Groppera Radio AG v Switzerland 12 EHRR 321 the European Court for Human Rights recognised the need for licensing. At page 399 (para 61) the court had this to say:- “The Court observes that Article 19 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not include a provision corresponding to the third sentence of Article 10(1). The negotiating history of Article 19 shows that the inclusion of such a provision in that Article had been proposed with a view to the licensing not of the information but rather of the technical means of broadcasting in order to prevent chaos in the use of frequencies. However, its inclusion was opposed on the ground that it might be utilised to hamper free expression, and it was decided that such a provision was not necessary because licensing in the sense intended was deemed to be covered by the reference to ‘public order’ in paragraph 3 of the Article. This supports the conclusion that the purpose of the third sentence of Article 10(1) of the Convention is to make it clear that states are permitted to control by a licensing system the way in which broadcasting is organised in their territories, particularly in its technical aspects. It does not, however, provide that licensing measures shall not otherwise be subject to the requirements of paragraph 2, for that would lead to a result contrary to the object and purpose of Article 10 taken as a whole.” On the basis of the above authorities and indeed the concession made by the applicant I am satisfied that the regulation of the Broadcasting Services is not