Congress wants to restore radio ownership cap, restore Fairness Doctrine.

[Les]

Conspiracy!

It's all a plot on behalf of:

Producers of garden and fishing shows that don't get nearly the
free airtime they would under a revived "Fairness Doctrine".

Newspapers who are losing circulation, hence advertising.
No, they don't think silencing talk radio or manipulating
ownership limits would do them any good....it would just make
proprietors of other media as miserable as they are!

We need a special prosecutor!

No...two.

<P ID="signature">______________
Yes, and even the fleas on their children's pets and the cockroaches under their sinks.</P>

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Don't Hold Your Breath When It Comes To Bringing Back Deregulation

Great idea, but it will not happen. As a number of posters have already stated lobbyists for the broadcasting giants will be swarming all over Capitol Hill, making sure their interests is not imperiled. Money talks in Washington D C and these media giants have the money.

Here is the other scenario why this deregulation bill won’t work.
Young people don’t listen to radio anymore because of the homogenized formats currently on the air and the creation of I pods and downloading songs from the Internet.

People of my generation are also migrating to other forms of entertainment and information, as some of us have grown tired of one-sided opinioned talk programming.

I am a strong advocate of capping the number of stations one company or individual can own in a community. But I’m a realist enough to know that this is nothing but a pipe dream because deregulation is so entrenched that it would take an act of God for changes to occur.




<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[SirRoxalot]

Radio Landscape

I think that a far more likely scenario for radio is that the broadcast bands will be forced into the digital age, and the number of broadcast streams available will increase exponentially. Even acceptance of the flawed IBOC system allows for multiple information streams on what is now a single channel.

New technologies are on the horizon that can provide high-speed Internet access over a wide area, providing mobile access to all sorts of data streams. Radio station owners will adapt by becoming Internet content providers. They are positioned to translate their existing content to a new media seamlessly because they already have the advertising and audiences bases intact.

The FCC understands that the current broadcast model is ineffecient in the digital world. Expect changes that will help increase that efficiency.

We have the problem of how to compensate the current owners of broadcast channels whose value will be reduced by the proliferation of new data streams. The owners, banks, shareholders, and lobbyists will be apply maximum pressure to protect or enhance their investment. Look for them to expand their service offerings beyond the scope of current broadcasting, and for them to cut a sweetheart deal for the cost of playing copyrighted music.

The Fairness Doctrine will become moot. Anybody who wants to get up on their digital soapbox will be able to. Heck, podcasting affords that opportunity right now. Expect some kind of regulation to tag objectionable content so it can be blocked by parents and people who prefer not to sample that type of content.

We will see greater competition for listeners. The cost of providing content will be significantly less than the cost of owning a radio station. Disenfranchised broadcasters and frustrated listeners will have low-cost opportunities to try out new formats. Some will succeed. Some will fail. The marketplace will determine the outcome.

By 2009, reducing the number of radio stations owned by a particular broadcast company may be insignificant. The Fairness Doctrine is already insignificant. I think that this legislation is a "feel good" bill intended to afford a ray of hope to a disenfranchised minority, but will never get out of committee.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: what are the proposed caps in the bill?

Sounds to me more like pandering, than a serious attempt to lower caps. If any serious attempt was made to force companies to divest properties, by the time the court challenges were done, we'd all be very old. Fairness Doctrine..ridiculous and unworkable.<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[Nate Wesley]

Really? How?

> I also think that anyone should be able to own a station.
> That includes newspapers, FOREIGN citizens or corporations,
> convicted felons and former radio pirates. Let's get this
> exclusive country club mentality out of radio. Radio
> ownership should be for everyone.
>
But when you openly advocate further deregulation that benefits the very corporations already own various media outlets, just how would you expect any of these regular person or persons to participate? The best AM/FM signals are gone, and the prices to buy even a rimshot station are prohibitively higher than they were before Telco '96.

GOOD businesses don't need the government to let them bend or break the rules.

<P ID="signature">______________
There's nothing to see here.</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...

Can we try to keep the discussion of socialism vs. capitalism to a minimum, please?

Thanks.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[smorris]

Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!

> The airwaves ie. radio frequencies are owned by the
> government. Radio stations use them under authority of the
> government and must operate under the government rules.
>
> You may not like to face that fact, but government ownership
> of the airwaves is Socialism.

Is collective ownership of the roads Socialism?

If you sold ownership of every road to the highest bidder I can guarantee it would damage the economy, since the owners would act in their individual interests and charge massive amounts for use of those sections of road for which there was no realistic alternative. You would at least need to regulate them in some way, to stop charging of extortionate amounts every time an operator gained a monopoly on all the routes between two cities.

The point being - regulation is sometimes helpful to the smooth running of the market.

> There are frequencies around the country that are unused due
> to regulation. If every available frequency that is without
> interference could be open, then there would be some real
> competition. I understand that NYC and SoCal have all their
> frequencies used. That is not the case for most of the
> country.

Interference is unfortunately a relative concept. Generally in practice whether you are causing interference or not is largely dependent on how good your lawyers are. When people suggest total deregulation of radio I like to point to the state that the FM broadcast tower at Valcava in Italy (serving Milan) has ended up in after 30 years of the government totally ignoring commercial radio:

http://www.geocities.com/fedstel/valcava/rottogiusto6.JPG
(From http://www.geocities.com/fedstel/valcava/valcava.htm)

And no, it's not an optical illusion, the tower really is bending because of the sheer weight of aerials. All put up by legitimate companies, and most with shareholders, I would add.

> The amount of land is limited too, but that has not brought
> about intense radio style regulation of land.

The amount of land is considerably less limited than the amount of space for radio stations. And there are actually fairly intense regulations; you can't build a skyscraper or casino just anywhere.

> I know that what has been tested by Friedman in the real
> world has suceeded. I also know that regulation has shown
> some bad effects in the real world where it is used.

Lack of regulation also has bad effects, such as factory fires where half the workforce gets killed because they lock the fire exits to stop them sneaking out for a cigarette.

Regulation should be kept within reason - there are plenty of examples in the world of silly over-regulation, such as the ludicrous Irish law requiring every radio station, irrespective of target audience, to broadcast 20% news - but it isn't inherently bad.

Maybe some restrictions in US radio should be lifted - but lifting all of them would be a mistake. Monopolistic practices are damaging for everyone except shareholders. If Clear Channel owned every significant station in Houston, the quality of radio in Houston (in the absence of competition) would pretty quickly nosedive.

 

[954]

Re: My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...

> Can we try to keep the discussion of socialism vs.
> capitalism to a minimum, please?
>
> Thanks.

When the subject is radio deregulation, that's highly unlikely.

73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...

> > Can we try to keep the discussion of socialism vs.
> > capitalism to a minimum, please?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> When the subject is radio deregulation, that's highly
> unlikely.
>

I said a minimum, not eliminate it entirely.

This is one of those difficult threads to keep on-topic, since it does involve a Congressional bill, but I'd like to see us debate it without devolving into an off-topic mess.

<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[radionut987]

Re: Don't Hold Your Breath When It Comes To Bringing Back Deregulation

> Great idea, but it will not happen. As a number of posters
> have already stated lobbyists for the broadcasting giants
> will be swarming all over Capitol Hill, making sure their
> interests is not imperiled. Money talks in Washington D C
> and these media giants have the money.
>
> Here is the other scenario why this deregulation bill won’t
> work.
> Young people don’t listen to radio anymore because of the
> homogenized formats currently on the air and the creation of
> I pods and downloading songs from the Internet.
>
> People of my generation are also migrating to other forms of
> entertainment and information, as some of us have grown
> tired of one-sided opinioned talk programming.
>
> I am a strong advocate of capping the number of stations one
> company or individual can own in a community. But I’m a
> realist enough to know that this is nothing but a pipe dream
> because deregulation is so entrenched that it would take an
> act of God for changes to occur.

Agreed. As much as most of us want to see the Clear Channel's of the world go down in flames, it' definitely going to take much more than a new bill in Congress to fix what's wrong with terrestrial radio. Even if this bill does pass, it's not as if critics will jump for joy, and say, "Bye, Bye, Clear Channel!"

 

[radionut987]

Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!

> Every time ownership regs were loosened, radio's public
> service (news) elements declined.
> Many markets are now at the point where they have no real
> radio news presence anymore (two medium markets where I grew
> up in Pennsylvania are prime examples).

Agreed. Albany, Ga., for instance, has a news/talk radio station, but no local morning talk show at all. It's all syndication, all the time.

> One easing of the regs I would be in favor of: allowing
> newspapers and TV stations to own AM radio stations. If it
> would encourage the sharing of news gathering resources, and
> get more news back on the AM band, this would be a plus to
> the public.

I disagree. I believe radio stations benefit from having their own news department, and not relying on local newspapers or TV stations to gather news.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radionut987 on 07/16/05 07:36 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Re: Really? How?

> But when you openly advocate further deregulation that
> benefits the very corporations already own various media
> outlets, just how would you expect any of these regular
> person or persons to participate?

How? Because he is living in an ideological fantasy world where concepts such as the limited supply of available stations apparently doesn't apply.

 

[peppertree]

Re: Radio Landscape

You may mean Geometrically. Exponentially would mean tens of thousands. I don't see how, but if they could multiply, that is a feasible scenario.




> I think that a far more likely scenario for radio is that
> the broadcast bands will be forced into the digital age, and
> the number of broadcast streams available will increase
> exponentially. <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!

That is a joke. Using government regulation to bring any kind of efficiency to any market. It will never happen.


> I disagree. I believe radio stations benefit from having
> their news department, and not relying on local newspapers
> or TV stations to gather news.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Really? How?...Simple!

In the sad state of radio. To do what a pirate can do for almost no money, a legitimate citizen (or corporation) who wants to legally own a radio station must go through one of the most severe regulatory ordeals that this country has. Others on this board can list the process, but I know that it is beyond belief. A law firm of specialists must be hired and a tremendous amount of money must be spent greasing the palms of all kinds of regulators from the FCC down. Maybe not bribery, but many many people must be satisfied with a blizzard of paperwork, public hearings, private filings and all kinds of other nonsense. A radio station will not even create pollution, but it is as if the wrong person started to broadcast, then the lives of thousands of people who live nearby would be threatened with death on a scale with Chernoble.

Then after an amount of money which I am sure is over a million dollars is spent and many years go by, then a sale is permitted. This is beyond the ability of all but a few individuals. Large corporations must be formed to go through the process. They must be experts in the process of purchasing a radio station.

The purchase of a radio station should not be harder than purchasing an office building. I know that if I wanted to buy a building on 42nd Street or Wall Street in Manhattan, there would be a limited number of buildings with that address, but if I was willing to spend the money, I could get my building pretty quickly. It would not be cheap, but my money would be used for a purchase not a process. The process is easy. I have bought many buildings including apartment houses and it does not cost much at all to go through the process.

Music lovers and lovers of radio will get in the business of radio station ownership if it is not hard to do. The money will be there to buy stations. There is always money to buy assets in the economy. Now only experts in how to buy a radio station can buy. Once they get the station, they squeeze every dime out of the asset, because they only care about the bottom line. The system guarantees that result.

In an open system of radio ownership, large corporations will be competing with others who may love radio or love music. The profile of a radio station owner will gradually change in an open system.




> But when you openly advocate further deregulation that
> benefits the very corporations already own various media
> outlets, just how would you expect any of these regular
> person or persons to participate? The best AM/FM signals
> are gone, and the prices to buy even a rimshot station are
> prohibitively higher than they were before Telco '96.
>
> GOOD businesses don't need the government to let them bend
> or break the rules.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Really? How?

And what in this economy is NOT in limited supply? Some things are more limited than others. Radio stations are not special. I know that outside of southern California and parts of the Northeast, there are AM frequencies that are unused.

Where I live, there is no AM station between 590 and 970. I know there could physically be at least five that would not interfere with stations in other cities during the day. The price of the process is too high to bother with an AM station.

The fantasy or misconception is yours. There are frequencies not being used and everything that we pay money for is in limited supply.

I still think you need to read a good book on Capitalism such as Capitalism And Freedom or Free To Choose by Milton Friedman.


> How? Because he is living in an ideological fantasy world
> where concepts such as the limited supply of available
> stations apparently doesn't apply.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...

Have I not kept this on the subject of radio the whole time? I think this is an interesting discussion and it is on topic. I think discussions like this belong on this board. I don't understand why there is a rebuke from you here.

> Can we try to keep the discussion of socialism vs.
> capitalism to a minimum, please?
>
> Thanks.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Don't Hold Your Breath When It Comes To Bringing Back Deregulation

99.9% of the people don't know, or care, who owns their radio stations. So you wave a wand and some of these stations change ownership to a new corporation. Still, no one will know, or care, who bought these stations. (yes, even if you could give these stations to different corporations, automation/voice tracking/syndication will still exist).<P ID="signature">______________
Soon to set the world record for recieving Nigerian scam and phising e-mails!</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Really? How?...Simple!

A couple of questions..where do you put everybody on the dial who wants to spin their favorite tunes, do their own political commentary, or whatever? Also, does it actually benefit a community if there are still financially sound broadcasters that can be depended upon to be there, as oposed to deciding to go fishing today and not broadcast that day. Also, how do you divide the already-limited amount of advertising revenue available (around 8%) 50 or 100 different ways (the fact that it was divided 8 or 10 ways was already some of what led to '96 in the first place.)<P ID="signature">______________
Soon to set the world record for recieving Nigerian scam and phising e-mails!</P>

 

[KMRichards]

Re: My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...

> Have I not kept this on the subject of radio the whole time?
> I think this is an interesting discussion and it is on
> topic. I think discussions like this belong on this board.
> I don't understand why there is a rebuke from you here.

You misinterpreted my post as a rebuke. You further misinterpreted it as being directed at you.

My intent was to place a gentle warning here <u>before</u> the thread had a chance to devolve. And I thank you for your attention to keeping it on-topic.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>