D
-
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
> Duhhh!
>
http://> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is one helluva lot less concentration than the cable, telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper business.
Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely you have one cable system.
Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper companies.
I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
http://> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is one helluva lot less concentration than the cable, telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper business.
Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely you have one cable system.
Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper companies.
I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
I'm still a fan of the old media concentration rules: 12 of each, AM, FM, TV. That was raised from 7 of each.
I believe media concentration has not been generally good for radio.
Upping your ownership from one station to two would not make you part of the monopolizing process, it would make you a group owner. Congrats!
> > Duhhh!
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
I believe media concentration has not been generally good for radio.
Upping your ownership from one station to two would not make you part of the monopolizing process, it would make you a group owner. Congrats!
> > Duhhh!
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
D
dbdigital
Guest
> > Duhhh!
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media giants is out of control.
For example, in L.A., there about 34 commercial FM stations. Of these, only two are owned by local companies the rest are in the hands of a half dozen media congloms whose corporate offices are nowhere near California. And I'm not even talking about the AM and television stations they own.
And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting their competitiveness? Give me a break.
db
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media giants is out of control.
For example, in L.A., there about 34 commercial FM stations. Of these, only two are owned by local companies the rest are in the hands of a half dozen media congloms whose corporate offices are nowhere near California. And I'm not even talking about the AM and television stations they own.
And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting their competitiveness? Give me a break.
db
T
Tom_Desmond
Guest
> Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my
> neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media
> giants is out of control.
My observation from here in the Dallas area matches yours for Los Angeles. Yeah, there are locally owned stations even in the major markets -- but they tend to be on the weakest, most limited signals. When one looks at the AM and FM signals that can really cover the entirety of a large or medium market, these are overwhelmingly in the hands of the media giants.
> And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting
> their competitiveness? Give me a break.
Agreed...it is complete nonsense. Instead of looking for scapegoats for their own failings, maybe the big groups should instead look in the mirror and consider the ways in which they could operate the stations they already own in a manner that will do a better job of appealing to local listeners.
And when I read the argument that allowing the big groups to own 12 stations in markets that have 75 or more stations would lead to undue concentration, I just want to throw up. Yeah, they'll own all the 100 kw FMs in the heart of town, and leave someone else to operate the 6 kw station in the most distant suburb...and they'll claim that the existence of the latter station (covering maybe 5% of the market's population) somehow means that the market is still competitive. In fact, they conveniently ignore the fact that in that market that has 75 signals, somewhere around a third are typically competitive "full facility" stations, with the rest being suburban rimshot FMs or low powered AMs.
> neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media
> giants is out of control.
My observation from here in the Dallas area matches yours for Los Angeles. Yeah, there are locally owned stations even in the major markets -- but they tend to be on the weakest, most limited signals. When one looks at the AM and FM signals that can really cover the entirety of a large or medium market, these are overwhelmingly in the hands of the media giants.
> And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting
> their competitiveness? Give me a break.
Agreed...it is complete nonsense. Instead of looking for scapegoats for their own failings, maybe the big groups should instead look in the mirror and consider the ways in which they could operate the stations they already own in a manner that will do a better job of appealing to local listeners.
And when I read the argument that allowing the big groups to own 12 stations in markets that have 75 or more stations would lead to undue concentration, I just want to throw up. Yeah, they'll own all the 100 kw FMs in the heart of town, and leave someone else to operate the 6 kw station in the most distant suburb...and they'll claim that the existence of the latter station (covering maybe 5% of the market's population) somehow means that the market is still competitive. In fact, they conveniently ignore the fact that in that market that has 75 signals, somewhere around a third are typically competitive "full facility" stations, with the rest being suburban rimshot FMs or low powered AMs.
D
dbdigital
Guest
> > Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in
> my
> > neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> > consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few
> media
> > giants is out of control.
>
> My observation from here in the Dallas area matches yours
> for Los Angeles. Yeah, there are locally owned stations
> even in the major markets -- but they tend to be on the
> weakest, most limited signals. When one looks at the AM and
> FM signals that can really cover the entirety of a large or
> medium market, these are overwhelmingly in the hands of the
> media giants.
>
> > And now they whine about how the ownership caps are
> hurting
> > their competitiveness? Give me a break.
>
> Agreed...it is complete nonsense. Instead of looking for
> scapegoats for their own failings, maybe the big groups
> should instead look in the mirror and consider the ways in
> which they could operate the stations they already own in a
> manner that will do a better job of appealing to local
> listeners.
>
> And when I read the argument that allowing the big groups to
> own 12 stations in markets that have 75 or more stations
> would lead to undue concentration, I just want to throw up.
> Yeah, they'll own all the 100 kw FMs in the heart of town,
> and leave someone else to operate the 6 kw station in the
> most distant suburb...and they'll claim that the existence
> of the latter station (covering maybe 5% of the market's
> population) somehow means that the market is still
> competitive. In fact, they conveniently ignore the fact
> that in that market that has 75 signals, somewhere around a
> third are typically competitive "full facility" stations,
> with the rest being suburban rimshot FMs or low powered AMs.
>
That is true. The two stations I mentioned are about 5kw each with limited coverage while the others are in the 50kw range.
Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of all the major cities. These conglomorates won't be content until they own it all. And the FCC seems equally content to roll over, play dead and let it happen.
Actually it's more a case of the FCC fiddling by being overly preoccupied with indecency issues (and, yes, fooling themselves into thinking that their is fair-market competition) while our so-called 'public airwaves' is being consumed.
db
> my
> > neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> > consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few
> media
> > giants is out of control.
>
> My observation from here in the Dallas area matches yours
> for Los Angeles. Yeah, there are locally owned stations
> even in the major markets -- but they tend to be on the
> weakest, most limited signals. When one looks at the AM and
> FM signals that can really cover the entirety of a large or
> medium market, these are overwhelmingly in the hands of the
> media giants.
>
> > And now they whine about how the ownership caps are
> hurting
> > their competitiveness? Give me a break.
>
> Agreed...it is complete nonsense. Instead of looking for
> scapegoats for their own failings, maybe the big groups
> should instead look in the mirror and consider the ways in
> which they could operate the stations they already own in a
> manner that will do a better job of appealing to local
> listeners.
>
> And when I read the argument that allowing the big groups to
> own 12 stations in markets that have 75 or more stations
> would lead to undue concentration, I just want to throw up.
> Yeah, they'll own all the 100 kw FMs in the heart of town,
> and leave someone else to operate the 6 kw station in the
> most distant suburb...and they'll claim that the existence
> of the latter station (covering maybe 5% of the market's
> population) somehow means that the market is still
> competitive. In fact, they conveniently ignore the fact
> that in that market that has 75 signals, somewhere around a
> third are typically competitive "full facility" stations,
> with the rest being suburban rimshot FMs or low powered AMs.
>
That is true. The two stations I mentioned are about 5kw each with limited coverage while the others are in the 50kw range.
Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of all the major cities. These conglomorates won't be content until they own it all. And the FCC seems equally content to roll over, play dead and let it happen.
Actually it's more a case of the FCC fiddling by being overly preoccupied with indecency issues (and, yes, fooling themselves into thinking that their is fair-market competition) while our so-called 'public airwaves' is being consumed.
db
I'd go with the following in each market: 2 FM's, 2 AM's, 1 TV. Five outlets in a market is, in my opinion, actually being generous.
I would also redraw the maps in terms of market boundaries. Some of them are just ridiculous (i.e. Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, MI being separate markets).<P ID="signature">______________
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
I would also redraw the maps in terms of market boundaries. Some of them are just ridiculous (i.e. Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, MI being separate markets).<P ID="signature">______________
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
> That is true. The two stations I mentioned are about 5kw
> each with limited coverage while the others are in the 50kw
> range.
>
> Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of
> all the major cities. These conglomorates won't be content
> until they own it all. And the FCC seems equally content to
> roll over, play dead and let it happen.
>
> Actually it's more a case of the FCC fiddling by being
> overly preoccupied with indecency issues (and, yes, fooling
> themselves into thinking that their is fair-market
> competition) while our so-called 'public airwaves' is being
> consumed.
You can't really blame the conglomerates - any of us would want to own as close to 100% of any market. It's the FCC's and Congresses' job to maintain our public interests, since they work for us; the Mays family does not. As much as corporate radio may bother me, let's face it as well; I've been in both LA and Dallas recently and both, like every other major market, are corporate in all ways. How many corner delis do you have any more?
> each with limited coverage while the others are in the 50kw
> range.
>
> Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of
> all the major cities. These conglomorates won't be content
> until they own it all. And the FCC seems equally content to
> roll over, play dead and let it happen.
>
> Actually it's more a case of the FCC fiddling by being
> overly preoccupied with indecency issues (and, yes, fooling
> themselves into thinking that their is fair-market
> competition) while our so-called 'public airwaves' is being
> consumed.
You can't really blame the conglomerates - any of us would want to own as close to 100% of any market. It's the FCC's and Congresses' job to maintain our public interests, since they work for us; the Mays family does not. As much as corporate radio may bother me, let's face it as well; I've been in both LA and Dallas recently and both, like every other major market, are corporate in all ways. How many corner delis do you have any more?
McDonalds's owns too many restuarants, Starbucks has too many coffee shops, Wal Mart has too many discount stores, where are all the mom and pop movie channels? In Akron Ohio there are 3 radio groups I can buy advertsing from.. but if I want to advertise in a daily newspaper, I have 1 choice. Sounds like the Newspaper industry has a much bigger monopoly. Make sure there are 3 daily papers in each of the top 100 markets, then worry about radio! <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Shawman on 03/08/06 01:27 PM.</FONT></P>
It Ain't Just the FCC
Please remember that the FCC tried to cut ownership limits and got their hand spanked by the federal courts. It will require legislation in Congress that can withstand a court challenge to rein in the conglomerates. The FCC can't do it by themselves.
Please remember that the FCC tried to cut ownership limits and got their hand spanked by the federal courts. It will require legislation in Congress that can withstand a court challenge to rein in the conglomerates. The FCC can't do it by themselves.
The Difference
> Make sure there are 3 daily papers in each of the
> top 100 markets, then worry about radio!
The difference is that you can start a competing newspaper if you wish. All you need to do is buy the presses, hire the people, and get people to buy advertising.
With radio, there are a limited number of public channels licensed to broadcasters, which is why the FCC was formed to regulate it in the first place. You have to obtain a license to broadcast, and there's a very limited number of licenses available at this point.
> Make sure there are 3 daily papers in each of the
> top 100 markets, then worry about radio!
The difference is that you can start a competing newspaper if you wish. All you need to do is buy the presses, hire the people, and get people to buy advertising.
With radio, there are a limited number of public channels licensed to broadcasters, which is why the FCC was formed to regulate it in the first place. You have to obtain a license to broadcast, and there's a very limited number of licenses available at this point.
> > Duhhh!
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
That mere 20% of 13,000 stations (owned by the big corps) reaches a majority of the available radio listening public.
Yes, your two stations would 'monopolize' radio pretty minutely. But corporate ownership still penetrates the biggest stations in the biggest metros with the biggest audiences. The 80% not owned by corps (including your stations) likely aren't in significant metros or markets. <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse. Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper. Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities. So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations. When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>
That mere 20% of 13,000 stations (owned by the big corps) reaches a majority of the available radio listening public.
Yes, your two stations would 'monopolize' radio pretty minutely. But corporate ownership still penetrates the biggest stations in the biggest metros with the biggest audiences. The 80% not owned by corps (including your stations) likely aren't in significant metros or markets. <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
> McDonalds's owns too many restuarants, Starbucks has too
> many coffee shops, Wal Mart has too many discount stores,
> where are all the mom and pop movie channels? In Akron Ohio
> there are 3 radio groups I can buy advertsing from.. but if
> I want to advertise in a daily newspaper, I have 1 choice.
> Sounds like the Newspaper industry has a much bigger
> monopoly. Make sure there are 3 daily papers in each of the
> top 100 markets, then worry about radio!
>
Not a good example at all...newspapers and radio stations don't have comparable buisness models or operating expenses. <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
> many coffee shops, Wal Mart has too many discount stores,
> where are all the mom and pop movie channels? In Akron Ohio
> there are 3 radio groups I can buy advertsing from.. but if
> I want to advertise in a daily newspaper, I have 1 choice.
> Sounds like the Newspaper industry has a much bigger
> monopoly. Make sure there are 3 daily papers in each of the
> top 100 markets, then worry about radio!
>
Not a good example at all...newspapers and radio stations don't have comparable buisness models or operating expenses. <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
Re: Radio had the w4rong business model.
>
> That mere 20% of 13,000 stations (owned by the big corps)
> reaches a majority of the available radio listening public.
How is this any different than, let's say, the number of choices you have in gas for your car, cell phone providers or even ink jet printers? Half of all US radio stations were not profitable pre-consolidation, so there was obviously something wrong with the business model that needed fixing.
>
> That mere 20% of 13,000 stations (owned by the big corps)
> reaches a majority of the available radio listening public.
How is this any different than, let's say, the number of choices you have in gas for your car, cell phone providers or even ink jet printers? Half of all US radio stations were not profitable pre-consolidation, so there was obviously something wrong with the business model that needed fixing.
Re: It has always been that way!
>>
> Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my
> neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media
> giants is out of control.
Let's see, you
>
> For example, in L.A., there about 34 commercial FM stations.
> Of these, only two are owned by local companies the rest
> are in the hands of a half dozen media congloms whose
> corporate offices are nowhere near California. And I'm not
> even talking about the AM and television stations they own.
You are wrong about local ownership in two respects.
Entravision, 4 FMs, general offices in LA. Univision, 4 FMs, general offices in LA, Liberman, 4 FM and 1 AM, general offices in LA. Sol Levine, 1 AM and one FM, offices in LA. Disney, 3 AMs and one FM, corporate HQ in LA.
Second, you can go way, way back and find that the major stations were not locally owned... look at the early 60's. 570 - Metromedia. 640 - Local. 710 group with local HQ. 790 ABC from NY. 930 RKO. 980 Crowell Collier. 1020 Storer. 1070 NBC 1110 Half-local group, which managed to lose the license. 1150 - Local Religious group. 1230 Local Class IV. 1300 Local, 1430 United Broadcasting, 1540, Local. So over half the LA radio staitons in the early 60's were run by compnaies based out of the city.
Local ownership has no bearing on whether a station is good. Some of the worst stations I have worked for were locally owned. And some of the best were not even owned by people in the same country but were locally managed by great people.
>
> And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting
> their competitiveness? Give me a break.
Radio is a mature business and still many stations do not make money. They may be right.
>>
> Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my
> neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media
> giants is out of control.
Let's see, you
>
> For example, in L.A., there about 34 commercial FM stations.
> Of these, only two are owned by local companies the rest
> are in the hands of a half dozen media congloms whose
> corporate offices are nowhere near California. And I'm not
> even talking about the AM and television stations they own.
You are wrong about local ownership in two respects.
Entravision, 4 FMs, general offices in LA. Univision, 4 FMs, general offices in LA, Liberman, 4 FM and 1 AM, general offices in LA. Sol Levine, 1 AM and one FM, offices in LA. Disney, 3 AMs and one FM, corporate HQ in LA.
Second, you can go way, way back and find that the major stations were not locally owned... look at the early 60's. 570 - Metromedia. 640 - Local. 710 group with local HQ. 790 ABC from NY. 930 RKO. 980 Crowell Collier. 1020 Storer. 1070 NBC 1110 Half-local group, which managed to lose the license. 1150 - Local Religious group. 1230 Local Class IV. 1300 Local, 1430 United Broadcasting, 1540, Local. So over half the LA radio staitons in the early 60's were run by compnaies based out of the city.
Local ownership has no bearing on whether a station is good. Some of the worst stations I have worked for were locally owned. And some of the best were not even owned by people in the same country but were locally managed by great people.
>
> And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting
> their competitiveness? Give me a break.
Radio is a mature business and still many stations do not make money. They may be right.
> > Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations. The
> giant
> > corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> > one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> > telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
>
> > business.
Yeah, but many of those 13,000-plus radio stations you speak of are non-commercial stations. Those places aren't owned by any of the big boys.
> giant
> > corporations own about 20% of them. Nationallly, that is
> > one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> > telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
>
> > business.
Yeah, but many of those 13,000-plus radio stations you speak of are non-commercial stations. Those places aren't owned by any of the big boys.
>
> Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of
> all the major cities. These conglomorates won't be content
> until they own it all. And the FCC seems equally content to
> roll over, play dead and let it happen.
How can you have a monopoly in LA if you have these operators with competitive stations:
EMMIS
Clear Channel
ABC (to be Citadel)
CBS
Infinity
Univision
Entravision
Liberman
SBS
Sol Levine
That consists of 10 players on FM alone, and you can add Salem and others to the AM roster. A monopoly is when one company essentially controls an industry, like AT&T was before the breakup into the Baby Bells.
> Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of
> all the major cities. These conglomorates won't be content
> until they own it all. And the FCC seems equally content to
> roll over, play dead and let it happen.
How can you have a monopoly in LA if you have these operators with competitive stations:
EMMIS
Clear Channel
ABC (to be Citadel)
CBS
Infinity
Univision
Entravision
Liberman
SBS
Sol Levine
That consists of 10 players on FM alone, and you can add Salem and others to the AM roster. A monopoly is when one company essentially controls an industry, like AT&T was before the breakup into the Baby Bells.
Re: Radio had the w4rong business model.
> >
> > That mere 20% of 13,000 stations (owned by the big corps)
> > reaches a majority of the available radio listening
> public.
>
> How is this any different than, let's say, the number of
> choices you have in gas for your car, cell phone providers
> or even ink jet printers? Half of all US radio stations were
> not profitable pre-consolidation, so there was obviously
> something wrong with the business model that needed fixing.
>
If that's the case, then how many listeners are complaining about the lack of variety and diversity they're hearing on AM and FM radio these days? That includes the lack of localism, voice tracking, etc.
> >
> > That mere 20% of 13,000 stations (owned by the big corps)
> > reaches a majority of the available radio listening
> public.
>
> How is this any different than, let's say, the number of
> choices you have in gas for your car, cell phone providers
> or even ink jet printers? Half of all US radio stations were
> not profitable pre-consolidation, so there was obviously
> something wrong with the business model that needed fixing.
>
If that's the case, then how many listeners are complaining about the lack of variety and diversity they're hearing on AM and FM radio these days? That includes the lack of localism, voice tracking, etc.
Re: The Difference
I realize the differences between starting a radio station and a newspaper. What I'm speaking to is the "outrage" over a "radio monopoly". The newspaper industry is much more of a "monopoly" than the radio business.
And yes there are a limited number of AM and FM frequencies available in a market, but XM and Sirius found a way around that.. and numerous internet stations have also found a way to exist dispite the frequency limitations. AM and FM stations don't just compete among themselves. Even if Clear Channel owned ALL of the stations in a given market, they would still have to compete for listeners and advertisers dollars with, TV, Inetnet, Satillite, IPods, MP3 players, Billboards, Newspapers, Mailers, ect ect ect....
I realize the differences between starting a radio station and a newspaper. What I'm speaking to is the "outrage" over a "radio monopoly". The newspaper industry is much more of a "monopoly" than the radio business.
And yes there are a limited number of AM and FM frequencies available in a market, but XM and Sirius found a way around that.. and numerous internet stations have also found a way to exist dispite the frequency limitations. AM and FM stations don't just compete among themselves. Even if Clear Channel owned ALL of the stations in a given market, they would still have to compete for listeners and advertisers dollars with, TV, Inetnet, Satillite, IPods, MP3 players, Billboards, Newspapers, Mailers, ect ect ect....
Re: Radio had the w4rong business model.
>
> If that's the case, then how many listeners are complaining
> about the lack of variety and diversity they're hearing on
> AM and FM radio these days? That includes the lack of
> localism, voice tracking, etc.
>
I have never heard a single "listener" complain about voice tracking. That noise mostly comes from radio critics, radio wannabes, and former all night jocks who didn't survive the Darwinian evolution of technology.
>
> If that's the case, then how many listeners are complaining
> about the lack of variety and diversity they're hearing on
> AM and FM radio these days? That includes the lack of
> localism, voice tracking, etc.
>
I have never heard a single "listener" complain about voice tracking. That noise mostly comes from radio critics, radio wannabes, and former all night jocks who didn't survive the Darwinian evolution of technology.
- Status