And thanks no doubt to a bit of Google AI, here he is on the topic, discussing how it was back in 1980 as well as more generally: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/20/anyone_remember...
As the Wikipedia article notes, this has nothing to do with the equal-time rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule about which I'm expressing no opinion.
But it still seems that "fairness" is BS. First, I'm quite sure it can't pass Constitutional muster on the web. It was permitted back in the 60s predicated on the FCC managing a scarce resource (broadcast frequency spectrum). But for practical purposes, Internet bandwidth is unlimited, and it couldn't get away with this. Also, this seems little more than a nod. For any given issue, there's a kaleidoscope of differing ideas. It seems it shouldn't be too difficult to engineer a compliant broadcast that still manages to completely exclude specific undesired ideas, by including other views as compensating balance.
Rush Limbaugh is crap, and I won't watch him. But do you really want to live in a country where that's actually forbidden? I don't.
I've seen this claim before, but I'm unconvinced. Do you think that under the "Fairness" regime, things really were fair?
I'm thinking of the way that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were treated by the debate commission, where fairness is claimed to be in effect.