Car Makes & Models with No AM Band.

[Kelly A]

Exactly what happened in Minot.

Great example. Trail derailment, fire of burning toxic stew. Cue the outrage that EAS wasn't activated, nor did Les Nessman end up going live on any of the local radio stations, or go live from the scene. The reality was found to be reality: Stations weren't in a position to staff in the middle of the night, let alone on a weekend. Local fire and EMS were up to their eyebrows with dealing with the scene on the ground. No time to deal with EAS.

 

[davideduardo]

But with streaming options, does it matter that much? When you think about it, a station 'owner' could trash their programming all they want because of taking payola while playing stiffs. It's up to them. Listeners have plenty of options outside of radio.

But, again, the U.S. legal definition of payola is payment for play or content without the knowledge or consent of the station owner.

If I create a streaming service and program it myself, there are no payola considerations and no sponsor ID rules. So if I get tickets, cash, blow or blow j--s, there is no violation.

Sure, it goes to the 'white-trashing' of the radio neighborhood, but I would argue so does the allowance of LPFM stations.

I'm of a mixed opinion in LPFM. I see some of them that are doing a good neighborhood job, but so many that are useless. But then, I could say the same for most AMs today!

 

[TheBigA]

I've worked in nations where payola is legal. It results in horrible radio programming.

Payola is legal in digital media. such as streaming sites and satellite. The law only applies to broadcasting.

As you say, paying for airplay isn't illegal. Not disclosing it is. So it's happening now anyway. Just get rid of the law.

 

[davideduardo]

Local fire and EMS were up to their eyebrows with dealing with the scene on the ground. No time to deal with EAS.

And even if they wanted to, nobody was trained (as in "educated" and not "able to run on tracks") to activate the emergency alert system.

Makes me wonder how many intricate procedures would be impossible to initiate when people are in danger, scared or overburdened?

 

[TheBigA]

Great example. Trail derailment, fire of burning toxic stew.

The crime there was that the local community wasn't warned in advance that a train with HAZMAT was coming though.

They tried to sneak it through at 2AM, hoping they wouldn't get caught. Whoops.

 

[davideduardo]

As you say, paying for airplay isn't illegal. Not disclosing it is. So it's happening now anyway. Just get rid of the law.

In broadcasting, engaging in payola is stealing from one's employer. That should be illegal in any situation, not just radio airplay or on a stream.

 

[Kelly A]

But, again, the U.S. legal definition of payola is payment for play or content without the knowledge or consent of the station owner.

But wouldn't that be up to the station owner to enforce? If my PD or MD got a skiing vacation for playing a piece of crap, then the station owner, GM, whatever, should decide what to do about it, including canning the PD/MD. Don't need a rule for any of that.

 

[TheBigA]

But wouldn't that be up to the station owner to enforce?

Absolutely. That's why we all have to sign a disclosure form. It's mandated for everyone, not just on air people.

 

[davideduardo]

The crime there was that the local community wasn't warned in advance that a train with HAZMAT was coming though.

But, if you look at the materials carried in a large portion of tanker train cars, that would be something that occurred several times a day on that route in the Dakotas.

A couple of miles from me is the Union Pacific "main route" out of LA. There are trains with tankers about every 20 minutes, all day long. The railroad right-of-way runs right through the middle of a market of nearly a half-million residents and visitors.

Advising that there is a tank full of, let's say, chlorine, would be so routine that nobody would pay attention.

California has ultra-strict labeling laws for anything that contains even a trace element of a "dangerous" substance. I have yet to find anyone who pays attention to them, because nearly everything, from house paint to nail polish to batteries to LED bulbs to toilet cleanser has the notice. If I've asked friends, they say "everything is labeled that way, so I don't know which things are really, truly dangerous. So I ignore them all".

 

[davideduardo]

But wouldn't that be up to the station owner to enforce? If my PD or MD got a skiing vacation for playing a piece of crap, then the station owner, GM, whatever, should decide what to do about it, including canning the PD/MD. Don't need a rule for any of that.

But, in today's litigious society, having a law allows the employer to say, "you stole from me" without being sued for wrongful dismissal in return.

 

[TheBigA]

But, if you look at the materials carried in a large portion of tanker train cars, that would be something that occurred several times a day on that route in the Dakotas.

Correct. The law stipulated trains traveling through 'populated areas.' I believe this law was repealed due to train lobbyists during the previous administration. So that law couldn't be cited in the Palestine derailment.

 

[davideduardo]

But with streaming options, does it matter that much? When you think about it, a station 'owner' could trash their programming all they want because of taking payola while playing stiffs. It's up to them. Listeners have plenty of options outside of radio.

But it's not "payola" if the owner does pay-for-play. That is just another commercial. If the owner fails to comply with sponsor ID requirements, that is a separate infraction.

 

[Kelly A]

But it's not "payola" if the owner does pay-for-play. That is just another commercial. If the owner fails to comply with sponsor ID requirements, that is a separate infraction.

In my example, the PD of MD took the ski vacation in exchange for playing/adding the stiff. Point being; the owner/GM would be responsible for whatever punishment or dismissal of the employee of being involved in pay for play, not because of some rule.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

As long as the government mandates radio stations must be on the air, the government should have a say in if that signal can be received. A station required to be on the air without the ability to be received is useless. This is not a free market issue.

There are a lot of car companies that still plan to offer AM radio in their vehicles. People can choose not to buy cars from the companies that don't offer AM radios.

Or they can install an aftermarket head unit.

Or then can keep a portable AM radio in the car in case of emergency.

So yes, it's a free market issue. Anyone who wants to hear AM radio can hear it without the government forcing it on them..

 

[TheBigA]

Anyone who wants to hear AM radio can hear it without the government forcing it on them..

The government isn't forcing anything on anyone. Nobody has to listen. The proposed law clearly states that vehicle manufacturers don't have to include AM. Just that if they don't, they have to tell consumers it's not included. So it's a mandate with no real teeth.

the manufacturer of the motor vehicles shall provide clear and conspicuous labeling to inform purchasers of those motor vehicles that the motor vehicles do not include devices that can receive signals and play content transmitted by AM broadcast stations.

It's a fake mandate. Meanwhile, radio stations still have to do lots of things, under penalty of federal law. That's why I say it's unfair.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

It's a fake mandate. Meanwhile, radio stations still have to do lots of things, under penalty of federal law. That's why I say it's unfair.

Lots of things, as in, keep the EAS equipment tested and working?

That's not just AM radio stations, though, it's FM stations too. And TV. Cell phone providers. NOAA radio. Even cable companies. There's no mandate to install those other things in people's homes or vehicles so how is it unfair just to AM radio?

 

[TheBigA]

That's not just AM radio stations, though, it's FM stations too. And TV. Cell phone providers. NOAA radio. Even cable companies. There's no mandate to install those other things in people's homes or vehicles so how is it unfair just to AM radio?

Where is the mandate for AM in homes? Right now, the imminent threat is to AM. One thing at a time.

As I said, it's a mandate with no teeth. Anyone can avoid installing AM if they choose. I'm sure Elon will find a way out.

Assuming the law is even passed, which is doubtful.

 

[seattlesarchiebunker]

The idea behind this makes me think of the Public Emergency Radio (WGU-20 as proof of concept) that was supposed to be operational in the US.

The idea was to put inexpensive longwave radios in TVs, smoke detectors, etc to provide (national) emergency information that would be switched on automatically. Nice idea in practice, especially in the post-detente Cold War era.

There were a couple problems with this: chief among them was the cost of building a dozen or so hardened longwave stations on what was (even then) a dying broadcast band outside of the US. Not to mention all it would take is some Neanderthal in the main control facility to play the wrong tape, and millions would be forced to listen to erroneous attack information coming out of their smoke detectors…which would have caused quite a political firestorm (and would have ended up being very counterproductive in the long run when people throw out or disable important basic emergency equipment).

 

[CTListener]

That's sort of up to them, isn't it? If it was up to me, I'd wipe out lots of laws, starting with payola.

Cash only, or would you take cocaine off the Schedule 1 list, too?

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The government is telling the radio industry what it must do. Why is that OK, but everyone else gets an exemption?

They shouldn’t. The answer isn’t go deeper into meddling, it’s back the heck out.

Spotify has no ownership regulations, indecency rules or payola rules. Radio does. You can't ignore the second part of the deal.

Nobody is.

There is no 'tenuous assumption.' The government controls the entire food chain, from the studio to the receiver. If you look at the back of radio receivers, there is an FCC logo on them. It's there for a reason. Even if they haven't done a thing to improve the quality of receivers.

The FCC should be a traffic cop of sorts, no more. Technical regulations of limited resources is entirely different than “you must put item X into the things you build.”

FCC Launches Proceeding on Promoting Receiver Performance

The Commission takes a fresh look at the role of receiver performance in our spectrum management responsibilities, with the goal of facilitating new opportunities for use of our nation's spectrum resources.

www.fcc.gov

So yes, the government has authority over receivers.

Great, manage the basic technical aspects. Butt out of who needs to put them where and let people (collectively based on economic realities) if and where they want them. Don’t prop up failing dinosaur business models just because you have some antiquated regulatory scheme from decades ago at your disposal.