The necessity of the second postulate in special relativity

Many authors noted that the principle of relativity together with space-time homogeneity and isotropy restrict the form of the coordinate transformations from one inertial frame to another to being Lorentz-like. The equations contain a free parameter, $k$ (equal to $c^{-2}$ in special relativity), which value is claimed to be merely an empirical matter, so that special relativity does not need the postulate of constancy of the speed of light. I analyze this claim and argue that the distinction between the cases $k=0$ and $k\mathrm{\ne }0$ is on the level of a postulate and that until we assume one or the other, we have an incomplete structure that leaves many fundamental questions undecided, including basic prerequisites of experimentation. I examine an analogous case in which isotropy is the postulate dropped and use it to illustrate the problem. Finally I analyze two attempts by Sfarti, and Behera and Mukhopadhyay to derive the constancy of the speed of light from the principle of relativity. I show that these attempts make hidden assumptions that are equivalent to the second postulate.