FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS - RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

[TomT]

You don't need the entire 6 mhz. in terms of getting a usable lower definition (e.g. 480 or 720 instead of 1080) picture--but the way the system works you still use the entire 6 mhz. TV channel to transmit the digital information.

So the Commission's concept of two stations sharing the one channel (and transmitter) is viable (just as, for example, our local U carries NBC on one portion of the stream and Fox on the second portion of the stream). But it is not possible, for example, for a tv station to use the first 3 mhz. of the channel and then auction off the second 3 mhz. for use by a digital service provider with their own, separate, antenna and transmitter.

 

[TheBigA]

So back to the topic, if people want to know why broadcasting is being treated as a commodity by owners, this is why. The regulators are just looking at the money, not the content. Except for Copps. But he simply doesn't have the power or the consensus within the Commission to change anything.

 

[joshzz]

I should have rephrased my initial statement. K-Love and the rest of the national type Christian stations offer very good, professionally produced programming but they don't service the local communities. Also, their actions contribute to unemployment.
To rectify this, I for one would like to see the following requirements placed on these national broadcasters:

Any full power station reaching a population of more than 100,000 people within the 60 dbu cannot operate as a full-time translator. However, it can operate as a part-time translator provided the following requirements are met:
1) The translator must have a minimum of one employee at the station from the hours 9 AM - 5 PM.

2) A three hour locally produced program must air each weekday between the hours of 6 AM - 11:59 PM

3) The translator must broadcast a minimum of 8 unique local community or local news updates per each weekday from 6 AM - 11:59 PM.

just my thoughts. josh

 

[TheBigA]

professionally produced programming but they don't service the local communities.

I challenge you to speak with the listeners of those stations, and ask them if they feel served or not. I think you'll be surprised by their answer.

 

[fybush]

Any full power station reaching a population of more than 100,000 people within the 60 dbu cannot operate as a full-time translator.

Josh, you might want to refine your terminology here, since "translator" has a specific meaning in FCC regulation. A "translator" in FCC parlance is a signal of 250 watts or less that is licensed as a secondary service and may not originate its own programming.

What you're trying to suggest, I think, is that a full-power station should be required to originate some percentage of its programming locally rather than being used as a full-time relay of a distant station or a national network. Under longstanding FCC policy, this would be difficult to implement: how do you define "local programming"? If EMF puts a warm body in a local studio pressing buttons to play the same music and liners that are being heard in 100 other EMF markets, is that "local" enough for you - and if it isn't, how do you define "local" without running afoul of the FCC's strong desire not to get tangled up in regulating the details of programming and formats?

There is one thing the FCC could do within its current scope of regulation: most EMF stations (as well as AFA and others) request, and are automatically granted, "main-studio waivers" that allow them to operate without the local main studio, and the mandatory staffing, that would otherwise be mandated by FCC rules.

If those waivers weren't granted so quickly and easily, and if EMF or AFA had to establish and staff local studios at each of its stations, how much less economical would those operations be to run.

And put another way: to what extent do the routine grants of those money-saving main-studio waivers constitute a sort of indirect government subsidy of those networks?

 

[TheBigA]

And put another way: to what extent do the routine grants of those money-saving main-studio waivers constitute a sort of indirect government subsidy of those networks?

The one small detail you left out is that EMF is a non-profit. That is their justification for the waiver. It's not unusual for the government to "subsidize" (your word, not mine) non-profits in many industries, including broadcasting.

I do find it interesting that this company is one of the largest radio station owners in the country, and basically flies under the radar of most radio critics. But given the state of the industry, as well as the habits of listeners, it is likely to be a major trend in the future. We could live in a country where our broadcast media is mainly owned be religious organizations. And there is no law I know of that would prevent it.

 

[JimmyJames]

It's not so much who owns it as the idea of having a full power station (especially in a rural area) with no local content.

I can think of one situation in particular where after 6 PM, all three local stations are on autopilot. The fourth will be a religious station with a studio waiver which will do nothing but relay syndicated programming. Only local content is the top of the hour ID.

I'm puzzled as to how these stations will continue to be funded in future since they sell no local underwriting and the local audience is fairly poor. I suppose someone with deep pockets funds a lot of these stations to evangelize. Which is fine, but these organizations have deep pockets and are tax exempt. The FCC should stop just handing out these waivers without any examination.

 

[TheBigA]

I can think of one situation in particular where after 6 PM, all three local stations are on autopilot.

But the population can probably still pick up additional nearby stations, correct?

 

[JimmyJames]

Actually, in this market there's no reliable out of market reception other than a superpower AM from 100 miles away in Canada.

 

[GeneSavage]

This discussion of "national network vs. local jock w/ an identical playlist" reminds me of a situation I'm sure was repeated across the country back when AMs & FMs couldn't simulcast 24/7.

This was the early 80s. Morning drive & afternoon drive were simulcast, but middays, nights & overnights were separate. There were live jocks on both sticks during these times, HOWEVER they were working off of the identical playlist.

Because everything was on cart & different jocks fired elements at different times, talked for longer or short periods of time, etc., the playlists would "drift" & create the illusion at times of separate programming... but right after leaving simulcasting, or when they were getting ready to rejoin, the stations would be separated by maybe half a beat.

As a listener, I had my favorite jocks, some on the FM, some on the AM... but it's hard for me to say having to separate the signals was really "in the public interest."

Indeed, by not being able to combine the two signal's ratings, the AM jocks were eventually laid off and significantly inferior programming was brought in on satellite (with absolutely NO local content when the bird was on). That damaged BOTH brands, and the stations were eventually sold. Automation was put on the FM (with the same jock 24/7!) & talk was put on the AM.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Good POV from all parties here. I'd only offer that more than ever before, radio has become "real estate and retail." A well maintained property is always more attractive. And as the saying goes, it's all about three things, "location, location, location."

I'm a proponent of "live and local" although enough of a realist to know this philosophy goes only so far. Take Howard Stren when he was on terrestrial. On the "down" side, Stern wasn't local, but racked up huge ratings. On the "up" side, he never beat the locally produced morning shows on this market's Classic Rock and CHR stations.

The two NPR stations in Buffalo are "locally augmented" while carrying non-local network programming. This approach seems to be very effective and productive. Each station has a substantial audience. Perhaps this is a possibility for EMF and the other God-Squad operators that are essentially "streaming on FM." Yet, here's an question to ponder: Who's listening now and who'll be listening in ten years? What compelling reason exists to "tune in" and stay tuned in?

Not long ago I performed due diligence on a small market fulltime AM station that had some potential. After all the numbers were digested, I concluded that it would be profitable only with my expertise in programming and production (on the air in AM drive, doing commercials, some engineering and selling, as well as vacuuming and cleaning) and the multi-tasking contributions of two other fulltime staffers who also would have to do traffic, billing, the website and promotion. There are only so many hours in a day. The so-called "exit strategy" would have been precarious at best.

Given the points made here about the availability of entertainment and information services elsewhere, I suspect that FM radio will face the same predicament within ten years. As an advocate and proponent of radio, I hope I'm wrong. But reality has a tendancy to kick us in the assets.

Bottom line concerning the thread topic, as one poster noted, the mandate for localization called for by Mr. Copps is nothing more than saber-rattling and posturing.

 

[TheBigA]

Actually, in this market there's no reliable out of market reception other than a superpower AM from 100 miles away in Canada.

Then it seems to me there's not enough population in the area to justify local broadcasting.

There was a time in this country, not too long ago, where there were vast spaces not covered by local radio. That's why you had high power AM. Then the FCC licensed towers in every cow pasture and forest in the country, and there wasn't enough population for the owner to pay the bills. That's wheer we are now. Too many stations not making enough money.

 

[TheRover]

As part of determining if "I"ve" been "served", I the consumer need online records of all songs played, and when, for at least a year back.

I will determine if I'm being served by what was, and what was not played.

THAT is the tool that the (music) radio consumer needs, Mr. Copps.

Just mandate it..... Several hundred gigabytes of song played information won't take up that much space or budget.

Just do it, please.

Then, I can really confirm how Sorry the music playlists are on the corporate music stations across the USA.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I hate to risk bursting your balloon, but I am hard pressed to remember anything from communications law passed by congress or regulations created by the FCC that indicate that a music playlist has anything to do with whether a radio station is serving the public.

I get the drift congress and the FCC have some strange thoughts about whether the community is able to receive meaningful information via radio about the political, social and maybe the religious events and directions going on. They seem to give some attention, maybe little more than lip-service, to being available to disperse news and instructions to the public about emergencies like the current blizzard conditions, about mudslides in California, etc.

There has always been some amount of concern in Washington that maybe radio has some kind of obligation to meet the un-met needs of the blind and illiterate who cannot read the paper, the immobile who cannot attend local council meetings and town-hall meetings, etc.

But a play-list ranking system to be issued by Washington or graded by Washington?

I'm sitting here laughing as I image Nina Totenberg doing one of her play-by-play renditions of the arguments before the Supreme Court as the justices ask probing questions of the lawyers for Goliath Broadcasting Corporation as they argue that they should not have been stripped of their license because they did not have enough songs on their play-list by artists who recorded in New Hampshire.

 

[TheBigA]

As part of determining if "I"ve" been "served", I the consumer need online records of all songs played, and when, for at least a year back.

This is what happens when the "me" generation gets old.

I think it was Copps who said, when asked about the proposed RIAA royalty for OTA radio, "I hope it happens, so radio will stop playing music altogether and just focus on news and public affairs."

 

[TVradioguru]

Sounds like TheRover is a proponent of the way Canada licenses stations who are restricted on what songs they can play, what format they can be, and how much Canadian artists are being played in a day.

With all due respect, it's because of government mandated restrictions that radio in B.C. and Canada sounds so bad..well..unless you're TheRover I guess...

 

[JimmyJames]

That it sounds bad is a matter of opinion.

 

[TheRover]

I hate to risk bursting your balloon, but I am hard pressed to remember anything from communications law passed by congress or regulations created by the FCC that indicate that a music playlist has anything to do with whether a radio station is serving the public.

Hey, remember the FCC Public Hearings around the country awhile back......

I guess those who took the time to wait to speak to the commissioners, and royally complained about how you hear the same songs as you drive across the US (on Non Top 40 stations, of course) were just wrong for even suggestions that the public have -any- complaints about what is and what is not aired on radio.

Rock radio is way too "efficient" for me, the listener.

When 4G fully rolls out, then I really won't care if terrestrial music radio falls off the face of the earth...Really won't care - one bit.

Bye ..

 

[TheBigA]

Hey, remember the FCC Public Hearings around the country awhile back......

I do. I even attended one of them. What did the FCC do as a result of them?

 

[Chuck]

Hey, remember the FCC Public Hearings around the country awhile back......

I do. I even attended one of them. What did the FCC do as a result of them?

I attended one too. San Antonio, to be exact. I suspect that a transcript lives on, neatly stowed away in a filing cabinet somewhere...