The Federal Communications Commission is asking for public feedback in a row over the allocation of airwave frequencies. Its chief Julius Genachowski (pictured) has already backed the view that wireless internet providers could make more efficient use of some frequencies currently held by TV broadcasters.

The argument for the reallocation is based on the view that broadcasters control far more frequencies than they really need, with one study suggesting they use just 20 per cent of their allocated frequencies. As these low frequencies mean signals can travel further and suffer less degradation from barriers such as walls, they’d be particularly suitable for 4G wireless internet and could reduce the number of relay towers needed for wireless broadband services.

As you’d imagine, broadcasters aren’t so keen on the idea, with some even arguing that reallocating frequencies could threaten their ability to provide free over-the-air services, particularly with HD broadcasts on the rise. There are also claims that some of the “unused” frequencies have been earmarked for future broadcasting developments such as making a serious go of broadcasting TV signals to dedicated mobile devices.

Blair Levin, who is developing a national broadband plan for the FCC, revealed that he’s discussed financial incentives for broadcasters, namely “whether there could be a market-clearing solution that allowed them to monetize their extra spectrum, while allowing us to maximize the public good… We want the country to use most effectively one of its most valuable resources, while increasing atonality of those broadcasters who recognize that they’re not maximizing returns for their shareholders.”

The FCC consultation (PDF link) asks for feedback on a number of issues including the principle of reallocating frequencies, ways in which broadcasters can trade existing channel space to avoid redundancy, and how well the broadcasters are using their airspace at the moment. The consultation also specifically asks what the effects would be if the number or availability of free over-the-air channels was indeed reduced.

Users of Twitter appear to have played a major role in the overturning of a historically unprecedented attempt to silence the press. A British court has now overturned its decision to ban a national newspaper from reporting a question scheduled to be asked in the country’s parliament.

The story began yesterday when a court issued a bizarre injunction ordering The Guardian to not report on the fact that a politician was schedule to ask a question in Parliament this week. The injunction barred the newspaper from saying who the politician was or what the question was about; the only information it could reveal was which law firm had acted in the case, namely Carter-Ruck.

This is despite the fact that all scheduled questions are a matter of public record and that repeated legal cases going back to 1688 have repeatedly confirmed the right of the media to report goings on in Parliament.

Other newspapers and broadcasters kept quiet about the case thanks to a general policy of following even those injunctions which apply to a single outlet. However, the news of the gagging quickly spread through Twitter, prompting several blog sites to investigate. Given the law firm involved, they soon figured out that the question was almost certainly the following:

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Such stories were also picked up by Twitter users, with “Trafigura” becoming the number one trending topic (the most mentioned term) on the site. That led to widespread interest in Trafigura and their alleged activities.

The Guardian was today scheduled to make an appeal about the injunction. However, shortly before the hearing Carter-Ruck withdrew its request to keep the information secret, apparently having realized that the injunction had become pointless.

The irony of the situation is that the actions of Trafigura and Carter-Ruck have completely backfired. It appears that before this week, even most well-read, news-savvy people were unaware of Trafigura. Thanks to the fallout of the gagging order, their environmental record has now come to many people’s attention in a way that would never have happened if the subject had simply being discussed in Parliament.