And America needs some Common Sense, not unfettered capitalism in our industry
> You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are
> able to buy.
Dead wrong. It's bad enough as it is, but less regulation would allow those companies with the capital to do it to own what's left of the radio pie. You really want THAT?
>
> It means that every available frequency on AM and FM that
> will not interfere with someone else's should be privately
> owned. That includes FM below 92.1 too.
I'll agree with you on that point. This nonsense of everything below 92.1 belonging to Public Radio is just plain stupid. Half the NPR affiliates and college stations could go away today and wouldn't be missed.... ONE public station per market is all that's needed, if that - especially considering how many stations on that end of the spectrum are duplicating the same programming.
>
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
Don't give me that ultra right-wing crap. A free for all market attitude is every bit as bad as over-regulation. There MUST be rules or nobody plays fair. Everything in moderation, my friend.
> The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of
> government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn
> that.
It was deregulated too far. Here's a little history lesson. Go back to the start of radio's problem, not in 1996, but back in the early 80s when the FCC, doing Congress' bidding, in the interest of opening up radio to more minority ownership, opened up thousands of new FM allocations per market. There's a capitalistic idea for you. Around the same time, came the first round of deregulation where companies could then own more than just one AM/FM/TV in a market. What happened was that in 5 years, half of these new stations were so far in the red they couldn't operate. It was a massive downward spiral, and ALL BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH AD REVENUE TO GO AROUND!!! So, after years of lobbying by the NAB on behalf of an industry that was in financial ruin thanks to this nit-witted idea of creating an equal opportunity-friendly radio ownership environment sanctioned by the government, the regulators decided to drop the caps and let those companies that were sound take over those stations that weren't. And look what that wrought. Lost jobs, a far inferior quality of broadcasting and a free for all mentality on the part of the large corporations, who care nothing about loyalty to those who made their stations great or the audience that they supposedly serve. And now, you'd like to see MORE deregulation? What are you, nuts?
I'm not the one to give you the right answer, but I'd suspect it lies somewhere between tightening the ownership belt a *LITTLE* and allowing some of these stations which are not serving their communities and not able to operate properly to simply go dark, leaving the revenue to a more qualified broadcaster (who should have to PROVE that he or she is actually doing something more for their COL than just playing "Hollaback Girl" 25 times a day).
I'm not suggesting anything so absurd as to require live DJs 24/7, nor do I think the FCC should force stations to do things like keep staffs when they change format - that's just the marketplace at work. But somwhere along the line, broadcasters should be held to account when it comes to giving back to their communities, which in turn might generate a bit more interest by the audience they supposedly serve... and that, if it works, might make a more profitable RADIO station which in turn might actually be able to do more for the talent it employs.
Use your head, guys... no more deregulation - ANYWHERE in this country. Big business is screwing the little guy everywhere.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
