I don't think it holds up to say that because the internet is not a scare natural resource, rules have to be updated as situations evolve in multiple areas.

If you want to apply a rule like "speech must be a net positive for society according to me" in the general case, the rule you need to update is the first amendment. It's specifically because of that spectrum gift that the government can be so aggressive about public good with OTA broadcasters. Speech doesn't come under government control just because it has a large audience or is culturally important.

@closeparen is not saying "because" they were just explaining the legacy scenario that got us to the classifications used today

>The legacy OTA broadcasters were granted exclusive licenses to large chunks of a scarce natural resource (RF spectrum). Their public service obligations are essentially their payments on those licenses.

This seems like pretty strong implications of cause and effect. Doing something as a payment in return of a service (license).

I did not read as strong implication. Some but not strong.

the word "essentially" and my a-priori knowledge that OTA broadcasters have to also pay cash-money for the license and have other obligations.

I see the scares-resource as one of the many factors for OTA classifications different from webApp.

Fixes for this issue have to cover many legacy and many new complex factors