• 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

Calls For FCC Ownership Changes

radiorobert said:
I'm sure the consensus on here varies but....where there many who were hoping to see the ownership limits relaxed -or- tightened?
Click to expand...
Shenanigans like what Gray Television did in Anchorage (buying the intellectual property of KTVA and moving it to then-KYES, creating a de facto news monopoly in the market**) obviously angered this FCC so much that they created a rule prohibiting that from ever happening again.

As for radio, when iHeart broke ranks with the NAB to lobby for changes of their own, it undermined the NAB's position considerably.

** Coastal Television, which owns the ABC and Fox affiliates, outsources their local news entirely and are regarded as non-factors.
 
TheBigA said:
It would be hard to justify tightening them after 25 years. The one thing some owners had hoped for was removing AM stations from the cap, allowing companies to but more FMs. If that would have happened, we'd see fewer commercial FMs going to non-com religious owners. In addition companies like iHeart would be more likely to buy more AMs for its BIN network.
Click to expand...
I would support removing AM's from the cap. This would free up a few slots in any given market for additional FM's.

I would also personally love to see the commercial translator rules reformed to allow commercial FM's to have translators in other markets. This would act as a limited terrestrial companion -or- competitor to things such as the iheart radio app and other online streaming, while obviously acknowledging the reality of the spectrum. (Maybe limit this to markets where said company has a presence if its a rated market, unrated markets its free game...something like that)
 
I suspect radio's travails are low on the FCC's list of priorities. Broadband first, keeping Congress happy second, and everything else far less of concern.
 
Mark Roberts said:
I suspect radio's travails are low on the FCC's list of priorities. Broadband first, keeping Congress happy second, and everything else far less of concern.
Click to expand...
Rand Paul effectively killed off any hope for legislation mandating AM radio in electric cars, so what could this FCC do?
 
Nathan Obral said:
Rand Paul effectively killed off any hope for legislation mandating AM radio in electric cars, so what could this FCC do?
Click to expand...

Not really. All he did was voice his single objection to a bi-partisan bill that will pass the Senate once it's brought to a vote.

They were trying to pass it by acclimation, and it didn't work. But they have the votes to pass it.

radioink.com

Rand Paul Blocks AM Act Passage, Setting Up Battle Ahead - Radio Ink

The AM For Every Vehicle Act failed Texas Senator Ted Cruz's attempt to get the bill passed under unanimous consent on Tuesday.
radioink.com radioink.com
 
TheBigA said:
Not really. All he did was voice his single objection to a bi-partisan bill that will pass the Senate once it's brought to a vote.

They were trying to pass it by acclimation, and it didn't work. But they have the votes to pass it.

radioink.com

Rand Paul Blocks AM Act Passage, Setting Up Battle Ahead - Radio Ink

The AM For Every Vehicle Act failed Texas Senator Ted Cruz's attempt to get the bill passed under unanimous consent on Tuesday.
radioink.com radioink.com
Click to expand...
Even if it does clear the Senate, the House is so absurdly ineffective and inefficient, with only 27 bills signed into law this past year. Maybe they'll have a rare moment of unity for a dying band, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
 
exdjted said:
To paraphrase Captain E.J. Smith when the Titanic went down, "Well, boys, do your best for FM and TV, screw AM, start a podcast and stream, and look out for yourselves."
Click to expand...
Actually, he saw a bright future for spark gap. The outcome would have been the same even if the Californian were streaming-capable; its webmaster would have been sound asleep, just as its radioman was.
 
radiorobert said:
I would support removing AM's from the cap. This would free up a few slots in any given market for additional FM's.
Click to expand...
I agree. The FCC does not see how radio advertising is bought… agencies and clients find radio difficult due to too many individual groups and stations. For survival, radio has to be easier to buy and greater economies of scale discovered.
radiorobert said:
I would also personally love to see the commercial translator rules reformed to allow commercial FM's to have translators in other markets. This would act as a limited terrestrial companion -or- competitor to things such as the iheart radio app and other online streaming, while obviously acknowledging the reality of the spectrum. (Maybe limit this to markets where said company has a presence if its a rated market, unrated markets its free game...something like that)
Click to expand...
Advertisers don’t buy that way. Each market is different and regional and national accounts buy market by market or the entire country or big regions.
 
I bet NAB will take the FCC to court if the appeal is denied as they should. The FCC is a joke and should be disbanded they do nothing other than keep outdated rules for broadcasters and are hands off Big Tech it's like there in bed with Big Tech.
 
TheBigA said:
If they can get advertisers to keep supporting BIN, I see them buying more AMs. They love AM radio.
Click to expand...
I don't see "love". I see "milk them while we can but don't move dead formats to FM".
 
TheBigA said:
It would be hard to justify tightening them after 25 years. The one thing some owners had hoped for was removing AM stations from the cap, allowing companies to but more FMs. If that would have happened, we'd see fewer commercial FMs going to non-com religious owners. In addition companies like iHeart would be more likely to buy more AMs for its BIN network.
Click to expand...

Consolidation has led to a small number of bloated companies dying under the crushing weight of debt, unable to acquire more stations even if they wanted to.

It has also created an environment that shuts any aspiring small commercial broadcasters out of the game because the agency ad model gives all the business to the huge clusters, for all the good it does in helping them pay that debt.

So, with this oligopoly in place, and a truly competitive broadcasting marketplace no longer possible, the only bidders left with a viable business model to buy stations are the religious broadcasters.

I don't believe giving even more property to the big radio bullies, after we've all seen what a failure that model has proven to be, is the answer.
 
Theater of My Mind said:
Consolidation has led to a small number of bloated companies dying under the crushing weight of debt, unable to acquire more stations even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't as much the debt as it is the dependence on a single revenue stream. They could pay for the debt if there were other sources of revenue besides advertising. When that drops, as it has for the past few years, they have no replacement. That's why small owners stay away. Why invest in something that gives a 3% return? I get more from a bank CD.

The problem the FCC has is that there are no other potential owners. They keep talking about attracting minorities, but they haven't provided a realistic incentive.
 
Theater of My Mind said:
Consolidation has led to a small number of bloated companies dying under the crushing weight of debt, unable to acquire more stations even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Not all the groups are in such heavy debt.

The reason most companies and investors don't want to buy stations is that radio is in severe decline, with inflation adjusted revenue down about 70% since 2002.
Theater of My Mind said:
It has also created an environment that shuts any aspiring small commercial broadcasters out of the game because the agency ad model gives all the business to the huge clusters, for all the good it does in helping them pay that debt.
Click to expand...
Agencies would just as soon skip buying radio. It is too complicated with too many stations and too many station owners. Further consolidation might bring more money back into radio.
Theater of My Mind said:
So, with this oligopoly in place, and a truly competitive broadcasting marketplace no longer possible, the only bidders left with a viable business model to buy stations are the religious broadcasters.
Click to expand...
No, the reason those stations are sold to religious broadcasters is that nobody else wants to put money into a business with poor future ROI projections.
Theater of My Mind said:
I don't believe giving even more property to the big radio bullies, after we've all seen what a failure that model has proven to be, is the answer.
Click to expand...
Yes, the model without consolidation would have been the bankruptcy of a huge percentage of station in the US. In 1995 half of all stations were not profitable.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom