• 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

Radio's Fear of the future...Why the FCC needs and overhaul

Interesting article. One correction:

Terrestrial FM/AM stations are exempt from paying performance royalties for the sound recordings they air.
Click to expand...

They're not exempt. There just never was a law requiring them to pay labels and artists. That's the fault of the labels, not radio. They could have set up a royalty system in the 1930s, and didn't. There wasn't a system in place until the 90s when the recording industry created SoundExchange. By law, AM & FM stations that stream must pay royalties to SoundExchange. So currently, any AM & FM stations that stream must pay artists and labels as well as songwriters. The labels want radio to pay twice when the songs are simulcast on AM & FM, and that's just unfair. Currently, most AM & FM stations stream their air signals, so they pay full royalties on their streams.

I agree that the streaming law is biased against smaller streamers. That includes small broadcasters. The law seems to favor companies like Spotify and Apple rather than smaller streamers. The FCC isn't involved in the royalty situation. That's a congress thing. The congress held hearings last year, and ultimately walked away from taking a vote. The issue for congress is they would be requiring domestic broadcasters, licensed by the government, to pay music royalties to foreign owned record labels in Japan, Germany, and France. We already have a huge trade imbalance now, and the government has put tariffs on foreign products. This would hurt domestic companies and benefit foreign companies.
 
xloungeradio said:
1819news.com

Jason Davenport: Radio's fear of the future – and why the FCC needs…

From the golden days of AM radio to today’s streaming boom, one thing remains constant in radio: its fear of change. | Alabama News
1819news.com 1819news.com
Click to expand...

Some points:

1) Nearly everyone involved in older industries, no matter what the industry is, is afraid of change.

2) The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA, which created the performance royalty rate) was passed over the silence of broadcasters, not over their full support.

3) Laws are always behind when it comes to technology. The FCC doesn't regulate the Internet because Congress hasn't given it the authority to do just that.

4) Even the largest broadcasters and podcasters still have miniscule audiences, compared to over-the-air broadcasting. And, because of the number of broadcasts/podcasts available compared to the number of over-the-air radio stations available even in the biggest markets, the size of the audience for each streamer/podcaster will remain much lower than for individual over-the-air broadcasters.

In short, while I think the commentator makes some valid points, he really misses the boat when it comes to knowledge about the legal landscape under which broadcasters and webcasters are operating.
 
TheBigA said:
The issue for congress is they would be requiring domestic broadcasters, licensed by the government, to pay music royalties to foreign owned record labels in Japan, Germany, and France. We already have a huge trade imbalance now, and the government has put tariffs on foreign products. This would hurt domestic companies and benefit foreign companies.
Click to expand...
i see your point and partially agree.
 
TheBigA said:
One of the first things this FCC did in January was repeal Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...
the best thing that could've happened.

Net Neutrality was hurting infrastructure deployment in rural areas and in many places allowed money earmarked for rural expansion to be reallocated to other places.

there really wasn't going to be a good side to having net neutrality.
 
TheBigA said:
One of the first things this FCC did in January was repeal Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

...which shows that Congress *did* not pass a law requiring net neutrality. Net neutrality was an executive decision based on 1) the demands of the party's supporters; and 2) the interpretation of other laws that suggested that the FCC could regulate how Internet providers could function. (I will have more to say about this in my next response.)
 
xloungeradio said:
and this is a good thing, i'm all for it.
Click to expand...

I actually support net neutrality though I'm well aware of the controversy over it. Essentially, net neutrality says that Internet service providers should behave as phone companies do and not show favoritism towards specific websites when it comes to Internet access. From my perspective, that makes the Internet a much more even playing field where all sites (assuming their owners are not convicted of violating state or federal laws) have an even chance of being viewed.
 
ted chittenden said:
I actually support net neutrality though I'm well aware of the controversy over it. Essentially, net neutrality says that Internet service providers should behave as phone companies do and not show favoritism towards specific websites when it comes to Internet access. From my perspective, that makes the Internet a much more even playing field where all sites (assuming their owners are not convicted of violating state or federal laws) have an even chance of being viewed.
Click to expand...
it's a moot point now as many many providers are ditching cable and landline phones in favori of just becoming an ISP with a VOIP and Cellular Phone service, Charter Spectrum being the largest (that i know of) that has done this, WOW is currently dropping cable and pushing youtubeTV bundled with internet.

So this is a prime example of net neutrality not needed when private sector has seen an issue and fixed it without big brother's hand holding.
 
xloungeradio said:
it's a moot point now as many many providers are ditching cable and landline phones in favori of just becoming an ISP with a VOIP and Cellular Phone service, Charter Spectrum being the largest (that i know of) that has done this, WOW is currently dropping cable and pushing youtubeTV bundled with internet.

So this is a prime example of net neutrality not needed when private sector has seen an issue and fixed it without big brother's hand holding.
Click to expand...

Wait until your ISP decides to slow down access to your favorite Internet webcaster or broadcast/webcast simulcaster...
 
ted chittenden said:
Wait until your ISP decides to slow down access to your favorite Internet webcaster or broadcast/webcast simulcaster...
Click to expand...
i am a digital Broadcaster, i have had an ISP try to shut my streams down with an accusation of pirating videos, i've had that knock at the door and Visit from the FBI already.
 
xloungeradio said:
i am a digital Broadcaster, i have had an ISP try to shut my streams down with an accusation of pirating videos, i've had that knock at the door and Visit from the FBI already.
Click to expand...
Those service providers have a considerable fear that folks that rent server space may be using material that is illegal in come way.
 
xloungeradio said:
Much in the same way the radio industry fears Digtal Broadcasters (i refuse to use the word webcaster or internet radio)
Click to expand...

I don't see that at all. You consider that both iHeart and Audacy own digital platforms.

Cumulus and NPR are very heavily invested in the podcasting world. Townsquare says over 50% of revenues are digital.

From my perspective, I use digital in a different way from an on air station. Digital isn't restricted by regulations or Nielsen measurements.

When I saw the topic of this thread, my take is you can't lump all broadcasters into one group.
 
TheBigA said:
I don't see that at all. You consider that both iHeart and Audacy own digital platforms.

Cumulus and NPR are very heavily invested in the podcasting world. Townsquare says over 50% of revenues are digital.

From my perspective, I use digital in a different way from an on air station. Digital isn't restricted by regulations or Nielsen measurements.

When I saw the topic of this thread, my take is you can't lump all broadcasters into one group.
Click to expand...
then why is it that whenever this topic is brought up, the industry says the same thing.

We are going to do what you do, but we do not consider you real broadcasters in any way,shape or form.
 
xloungeradio said:
then why is it that whenever this topic is brought up, the industry says the same thing.

We are going to do what you do, but we do not consider you real broadcasters in any way,shape or form.
Click to expand...

Who is "the industry?" From what I see, there are hundreds of independent owners who do whatever they want.

That also brings up the topic of what's a "real broadcaster?" What broadcasting laws are you required to follow?
 
TheBigA said:
Who is "the industry?" From what I see, there are hundreds of independent owners who do whatever they want.

That also brings up the topic of what's a "real broadcaster?" What broadcasting laws are you required to follow?
Click to expand...
I can not Join NAB or my local State Association, as both do not recognize me as being part of the broadcasting industry.

go back and re-read the article linked in this thread, it's covered in there.
 


Back
Top Bottom