• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Buffalo makes radio history in 1920

Great article! I never knew about Buffalo's role in providing election results, or that KDKA was part of a larger, nationwide effort. It seems that a lot of amateurs were involved. I guess the difference is that Frank Conrad's 8KX went on to become KDKA under the auspices of Westinghouse. Frank Klinck, scion of a wealthy Buffalo family, wasn't trying to market radios. He and hundreds of other amateurs likely got lost to an increasing number of rules, regulations, and costs as corporate radio evolved once they realized there was money to be made with the new medium. All they had to figure out was how to monetize it.
 
SirRoxalot said:
He and hundreds of other amateurs likely got lost to an increasing number of rules, regulations, and costs as corporate radio evolved once they realized there was money to be made with the new medium. All they had to figure out was how to monetize it.
Click to expand...

Don't know his particular story, but the establishment of the Federal Radio Commission was designed to professionalize broadcasting, under the Commerce Department and Herbert Hoover. They sought to push out the amateurs, and it was fairly controversial at the time.
 
I guess somebody figured out how to monetize radio...

A federal court decided that the Commerce Department could not limit the number of broadcasting licenses issued or designate station frequencies leading to the chaos of whoever had the biggest transmitter reached the most listeners. Even Congress realized that it was not in the "public interest, convenience, or necessity" to allow chaos to reign. They also likely realized that the feds would make money from regulating broadcasting, and the Radio Act of 1927 gave birth to the Federal Radio Commission. It was weak, and limited in scope, and big corporations took advantage to build nationwide networks that dominated the airwaves at the expense of local broadcasters.

The Telecommunications Act of 1934 was much broader in scope, and brought radio and other electronic transmissions under the authority of a new Federal Communications Commission that did have the teeth regulate electronic media.
 
SirRoxalot said:

The Telecommunications Act of 1934 was much broader in scope, and brought radio and other electronic transmissions under the authority of a new Federal Communications Commission that did have the teeth regulate electronic media.
Click to expand...

Most of the pressure that created the FCC was fear by congressmen that the networks would become too powerful. The result was the limit of 7 AM stations, and the capping of maximum power as they created mostly micro-power stations that could not influence whole states or regions. And that is why we have so many 5 kw and less stations that don't cover their whole market today.
 
5KW and less stations covered a lot of territory when there was less interference and AM radios were manufactured with better antennas and tuners. 1KW or less stations did a fine job with the majority of population in smaller markets, or even ethnic neighborhoods of large cities. Not every market is NY or LA.
 
SirRoxalot said:
5KW and less stations covered a lot of territory when there was less interference and AM radios were manufactured with better antennas and tuners. 1KW or less stations did a fine job with the majority of population in smaller markets, or even ethnic neighborhoods of large cities. Not every market is NY or LA.
Click to expand...

But even at the lower interference levels, none of those stations covered entire states and at night the coverage was much less as the band filled up in the 30's.

The Class IV 250 watters, of which there were ever-so-many even in the mid to late 30's, did not cover much more than an average eastern US county. And many of the regional channels were 1 kw, with increases in power coming after WW II. Yes, cities were smaller. But the FCC really did not allow regional coverage to many stations.

There are two dozen former 1-A clear channels. Add in the 1-B's and that does not even give the 100 biggest cities one each. Some states, like FL, MT, ID, AZ and MS got none. A few sort of got one... but with directional or limited night power.

Politicians, who feared powerful stations, made sure that very few of them could cover their own senatorial district. And they loved the low power stations, as none could be of much impact.

There were very, very few ethnic stations prior to the post-WW II period.
 
David, the whole point was for radio stations to be local media, competing with local newspapers, covering local events, and serving local audiences. There certainly were national networks and clear channel stations that covered regions and even entire continents. The idea was to have a reasonable number of voice, including local, not just a few massive national chains.
 
SirRoxalot said:
David, the whole point was for radio stations to be local media, competing with local newspapers, covering local events, and serving local audiences. There certainly were national networks and clear channel stations that covered regions and even entire continents. The idea was to have a reasonable number of voice, including local, not just a few massive national chains.
Click to expand...

No, if you read the hearings done by the Senate, the intent of the ownership regulations, low power limits and the like were all intended to limit the influence of Red, Blue and CBS. It had little to do with really encouraging service. In fact, the service elements were put in so that a station could not take one of the webs all day long. The politicians feared having powerful voices that they could not control, so they regulated them severely.
 
DavidEduardo said:
No, if you read the hearings done by the Senate, the intent of the ownership regulations, low power limits and the like were all intended to limit the influence of Red, Blue and CBS. It had little to do with really encouraging service. In fact, the service elements were put in so that a station could not take one of the webs all day long. The politicians feared having powerful voices that they could not control, so they regulated them severely.
Click to expand...

Your own quote indicates that the Senate wanted to encourage local voices and local ownership, not massive corporate ownership. Power determines reach, and the point of limiting the power of transmitters was to prevent a few huge transmitters from blanketing the country and wiping out local broadcasts. That was also the intent of the rules limiting the number of signals one corporation could own.

The Telecom Act of 1996, modifications since then, and the internet have rendered most of this moot now anyway. Now the regulatory fight is over getting broadband service to rural areas, no matter what the medium. The digital divides is real and growing broader with every 5G installation that goes into big cities while service languishes in rural areas.
 
SirRoxalot said:


Your own quote indicates that the Senate wanted to encourage local voices and local ownership, not massive corporate ownership. Power determines reach, and the point of limiting the power of transmitters was to prevent a few huge transmitters from blanketing the country and wiping out local broadcasts. That was also the intent of the rules limiting the number of signals one corporation could own.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the reasons came from a few senators who were afraid that media companies might change attitudes. By allowing few stations that could even cover part of a state, let alone all of it, they made sure that voices were fragmented.

The hearing papers are on www.worldradiohistory.com

The Telecom Act of 1996, modifications since then, and the internet have rendered most of this moot now anyway. Now the regulatory fight is over getting broadband service to rural areas, no matter what the medium. The digital divides is real and growing broader with every 5G installation that goes into big cities while service languishes in rural areas.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the companies involved are much larger and much fewer than the broadcast companies of the past. Just a few entities control the majority of our new media opinion outlets, and they are capable of influencing elections and policy much more than radio or print could in the past.
 
TheBigA said:
We see that same fear this week when Ted Cruz shouted at the CEO of Twitter: "Who elected you?"
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, the duo of Twitter and Facebook truly frightens me. They have greater power with just one little change in posting policy than any Senator or Governor.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Quite honestly, the duo of Twitter and Facebook truly frightens me. They have greater power with just one little change in posting policy than any Senator or Governor.
Click to expand...

It's just like this message board. Unless posters violate the TOS, the posts are left unaffected. Neither company has enough staff to whack every mole. But a lot of people (and foreign countries) use these sites for unintended purposes. That's become a problem. Someone has to monitor and moderate. Do you prefer the company or the government? Would you like the government to moderate this site?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom