• 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

AM FM Parity?

T

TheBigA

Here's a story that should get all the technologists fired up. A couple of Senators (one from each party) have written letters to the FCC for the elimination of the AM-FM ownership subcaps. They claim that, thanks to IBOC, AM and FM now have technical parity. In other words, IBOC has now made AM the equal of FM. Isn't that great? They say over 400 stations (out of 14,000) use IBOC. They hope that by eliminating the subcaps, current owners will sell their AMs and increase ownership diversity. Isn't that great? They say that because of the incredible success of a handful of 50K AMs in NY and a few other major markets, that AM presents a great financial opportunity. I guess they're saying that because WCBS-AM bills so well, if I buy a 5K AM in Sheboygan, I can be rich. Isn't that great?

Aren't you glad the Congress is taking such an interest in helping AM radio?

Here's the article from RBR. The editor is obviously as amazed as I was:

http://www.rbr.com/radio/senators-push-for-am-fm-parity-for-local-ownership-purposes.html

Just did a quick search on this story. Here's why the Senators wrote these letters. Last year, a group of radio owners filed a brief with the FCC to eliminate the AM-FM ownership subcaps. They give all the same statistics given by the Senators. You can read their brief here:

http://www.mediaservicesgroup.com/articles/Joint%20Reply%20Comments%20-%202010%20Quadrennial%20Regulatory%20Review.pdf

Careful reading of their filing will show that the reason they want to eliminate the subcap is so they can buy more FMs.
 
Many words apply, among them: Delusional. Cynical. Transparent. And, one supposes: Predictable. It's also a telling glimpse into the real meaning and purport of HD Radio's rollout.

This is yet another attempt at a "land grab" by Big Corporate Radio. AM stations are more affordable! So that means they "represent an easier path to ownership for women and minorities!" (Translating this affront to common sense into English from Big Radio-speak: "here's a great way for us to shove off marginal-to-worthless facilities on people who don't know any better, so we can get credit while snatching more FM properties.")

Like Vietnam, Big Radio is throwing up their hands, declaring "HD Radio Victory" and heading back to the regulatory pump for another gimme. "OK! HD Radio's a success! It's fixed up AM! Give us more FMs now!"

455 AMs are using IBOC? What are they smoking? I don't even think iBiquity is making that wild a claim. The real number is about half that, with only about a third (75 or so) with HD 24/7. Half of those are graveyarders with night coverage extending maybe 10 miles. The reality: fewer than 40 AM general-coverage big-signal AMs are using IBOC unlimited hours. That's NOT success, by any reasonable measure.
 
The mantra for Republicans is Less Government Regulation. That's what the petitioners are asking for. Remove these antiquated government regulations, and you'll see more minority ownership.

There was an article today that several big corporations are making the same pitch, along with the American Petrolium Institute. Allow big oil to increase drilling, and you'll get a million new jobs. Allow AT&T to merge, and you'll get more jobs. All of the Republican candidates are campaigning for removing federal regulations from business. Allow big companies to do what they want, and that will lead to more jobs for all.

Are Republicans delusional? Is less ownership regulation a good thing in broadcasting? This may be a situation where Bob the conservative has to fight with Bob the small local broadcaster. Who wins?
 
TheBigA said:
Are Republicans delusional? Is less ownership regulation a good thing in broadcasting? This may be a situation where Bob the conservative has to fight with Bob the small local broadcaster. Who wins?
Click to expand...

Let's not go here because we'll end up "outside" after I write about 400 pages on how Pelosi/Reid/Obama and the Democrats have royally screwed up the economy over the past 5 (yes, five) years with increased government regulation. They are the reason why we're headed back into recession. And we have headed back into recession and it was unnecessary.

So don't get me started on politics. Best to stick to radio here. Just some friendly advice..... ;)
 
Yeah, BRNout, no worries - I'm not taking the bait. If we're going to have degregulation of the radio industry, it should be crafted in terms of equanimity. In other words: if there are bennies to be doled out, let's make sure the entrepreneurial broadcasters (the much-maligned "mom-and-pops") get a payday along with CBS and Clear Channel.

Compare and contrast easing ownership conditions for EVERYONE, with the cynical, manipulative rollout of HD Radio (which, after all, IS the subject of this board, not politics.) What should the role of the NAB be? Do we need a new radio industry lobbying group to represent us? Discuss.
 
Savage said:
In other words: if there are bennies to be doled out, let's make sure the entrepreneurial broadcasters (the much-maligned "mom-and-pops") get a payday along with CBS and Clear Channel.
Click to expand...

If you look at the filing that I linked in the first post, you'll only see one major owner (Cumulus) among the signatories. Only two (Beasley and Cumulus) are iBiquity investors. The rest are smaller groups. Not CC, CBS, or Entercom. Those are the three most interested in expanding their FMs. Also the two Senators were from smaller states, not Texas or other homes for the big owners.

Savage said:
Do we need a new radio industry lobbying group to represent us? Discuss.
Click to expand...

That depends. There are a lot of NAB board members from "entrepeneurial" broadcasters. In fact, they make up the majority of the Board. Are you actually a member? I often find out that a lot of people who don't like the direction of the NAB aren't actually members. The organization usually represents its members. Anyone is welcome to start a new group. But it takes a lot of time and dedication to make any organization work.
 
The NAB is a hapless, worthless bunch of stumblebums who couldn't care less about smaller broadcasters. I happen to be good friends with a former board member, an entrepreneurial broadcaster, who quit for precisely this reason - also because the board ignored his warnings about what a disaster HD Radio was going to be.

Consequently, the NAB isn't getting one dollar from me. We need a competent industry organization which really has the interest of all radio operators at heart.
 
Savage said:
I happen to be good friends with a former board member, an entrepreneurial broadcaster, who quit for precisely this reason - also because the board ignored his warnings about what a disaster HD Radio was going to be.
Click to expand...

I sit on a lot of committees with a lot of people with whom I disagree. I have found that it only serves their purpose, not mine, when I don't show up at meetings. Must be present to win.
 
Must be present to win? "Must be listened to, or you're wasting your time." This guy is an accomplished, successful operator with a highly-respected top-billing FM. He even paid his consultant and Washington law firm -a ton - to present detailed arguments about the dangers of HD Radio. The NAB technical task force completely ignored all the data - just like they asked for, and then ignored all of our voluminous filings about WBZ-HD and CBS Radio. They simply have a pro-HD agenda and aren't interested in any nonsupportive evidence. How is that in the interests of all broadcasters?

Of course the critics are all being vindicated these days as HD-AM is dead and the FM version's circling the drain, for all the reasons we exhaustively set forth. It's the engineering train-wreck every thinking and objective engineer said it would be. And where is the NAB? Still sticking its head in the sand because its Big-Radio members tell it to.

Add it to the ridiculous spectacle of the multimillion-dollar lawsuit over satellite radio, and the inescapable conclusion is the NAB is a bunch of corrupt clowns who are only interested in a few companies which pay its bills. And TV. So I've got the same interest in them they have in me, and other small broadcasters. That would be "zero."
 
Just remember when you guys hear "bi-partisan", it is not always a Conservative Republican as the token "R".

"Never elect a democrat, don't re-elect the Republican" -me.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
 
Savage said:
We need a competent industry organization which really has the interest of all radio operators at heart.
Click to expand...
It'll never happen due to the fact that the more powerful will take over. What we need is an association that represents the smaller broadcasters. Even if we don't have the political clout/ability to pay congresspeople, we still have the ability to issue opinions to FCC NPRM procedings and to other relevant procedings.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom