Broadcasters plan to use the free space in varying ways, according to the FCC's head, and some intend to create a single channel---namely high-definition TV-- that gives crystal-clear visuals of, perhaps, live sports events.

Other boradcasters say they'd prefer to keep TV reception in its present state of clarity, avoiding the single channel idea and broadcasting instead as many as 10 programs simultaneously.

The FCC leader has no problem with either plan. "Let digital broadcasters experiment with the medium," he says, and "allow the market to dictate" their business choices.

What Hunt does object to, however, are the threats of Louisiana's Republican Representative, Billy Tauzin, chair of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. Tauzin insists that broadcasters use the new spaces given only or primarily for a single high-definition program.

If they refuse, the Republican Congressman may move to impose special fees on them.

This is strange behavior from a Republican who, one would think, might follow the Republican party line, keeping government's nose out of business interests.

This week the Senate Commerce Committee will examine the broadcasting industry's intentions, especially those recommending multiple programs and which shy away from singular high-definition usage (known as HDTV).

The FCC Chair is furious. "No new taxes, is my answer," he says, "not even on broadcasters who should have been required to bid for licenses to use this spectrum instead of getting them free."

Hunt points out that the power to tax is, in fact, the power to destroy. He is concerned, he says, about destroying experimentation, the foundation stone of entreprenurial advances.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not require the use of the spectrum only for single-channel HDTV. To do so, it seemed clear to the Act's makers, would spell poor economic policy as well as a blockage of free speech opportunities. There seems no good reason, argues the FCC's Hunt, why a broadcaster who wants to send out a variety of new channels should be limited to producing only one channel, high definition.

It is clearly a case of governmental interference with the business of communications technologies.

Hunt suggests better ways in which Congress might meddle. For example, he writes, it could "require broadcasters to meet specific public interest obligations" such as allowing as much as $400 million of free-time political advertisements or better educational TV programming. Such interference might save taxpayers a bundle and do away with problems such as the current political battles over campaign finance reform.

To insist on a sharp picture over every other possibility, and to disallow market forces to determine the best use of the airwaves, it seems, puts the debate about digital TV in an unworthy quagmire.

Worse, according to Hunt, Republican Tauzin's behavior conflicts with First Amendment values. "More channels," Hunt reminds us, "mean more speech, whether it is about sports, entertainment or politics."