FCC Grilling KUSF/KDFC LMAers

[recto101]

Why not move 90.3 FM Xtmr to the San Bruno Mountains to improve the signal to San Jose? I heard that San Bruno Mountains tended to do better in sending signals to San Jose than Mount Beacon and Mount Sutro.

KZSU (90.1, first adjacent) is already fighting the move to Beacon for interference reasons... imagine what it
'd be like moving to Mt San Bruno...

But wasn't the reason why KFOG bought 97.7 San Jose was that 104.5 FM is on Mount Sutro and any signal from Mount Sutro cannot reach San Jose and Morgan Hill well but the XTMR can San Bruno Mountains can reach San Jose better so KDFC/USC or KUSC inc does not have to buy the "third station". Or if they have to but the third station it would mean dismantling another LPFM station that currently owed by a college or religious group in San Jose and it will face the same contraversies as the KUSF issue

 

[Lou_S]

90.3 faces a hard contour cutoff towards the south bay - no matter where they move it, their 60 dbu contour can't cross KZSU's 54 dbu contour.

So if they were to move it to a more southerly location, they'd just have to reduce the power towards KZSU a like amount so their 60 dbu contour stays in the same place.

Moving the transmitter to the north (Mt. Beacon) actually winds up allowing more coverage to the south because a station's coverage doesn't magically stop at the 60 dbu contour, it spills over a bit beyond it. So if the distance from the transmitter to the allowed 60 dbu is longer, the spillover coverage will likewise be longer.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's the basic reality that "savekusf" seem to have ignored: USF sold the station. They don't want to own it. So if, for some reason, the FCC does the unthinkable and reverses the sale, then the University will seek to sell it again. There is no law or requirement that will force them to own a station they don't want, and return it to the students. Challenging the new owners isn't going to bring back the old station. That decision has been made.

 

[weav]

Hell, they can just send in the license. Then some hay-zoos caster can try filing for the hole that it leaves. I think in reality the save-KUSF crowd need to move on with their lives. It's like with the Energy sale: You can get City Hall to pass all the resolutions they want but they don't control much when it comes to broadcasting.

I'm not happy that they lost their sandbox, but at this point, lost it is and they each need to find another one.

 

[recto101]

You can't save KUSF when the University of San Francisco has to make budget cuts to all departments. Sure if you are a broadcasting major you need KUSF to get a feel how a real radio station works you'll be the first people outraged by this. But the Science departments have to cut the spending on new laboratory equipment too and I don't want to see it happen but its does happen.

 

[recto101]

Check out this KUSF link on live365. http://www.live365.com/index.live its basically a fan site for old 90.3fm.

also the old 90.3 http://www.live365.com/index.live has another live365 link. do a seach on the live365 site on KUSF and there are 2 links there done by the Save KUSF crew.

 

[DavidKaye]

You can't save KUSF when the University of San Francisco has to make budget cuts to all departments. Sure if you are a broadcasting major you need KUSF to get a feel how a real radio station works you'll be the first people outraged by this. But the Science departments have to cut the spending on new laboratory equipment too and I don't want to see it happen but its does happen.

Longtime radio PD (for both music and talkshows), Rich Wood, has long said that he could teach a person how to do a talkshow if they had something to say. He could probably say the same thing about DJing, and Bill Drake certainly showed that with some liners and a tight format to follow, just about anybody could become a creditable DJ.

So, given the consolidation of radio stations these past 10 years, I'm wondering exactly why colleges need to teach broadcasting. They don't teach horse shoeing, do they?

 

[TheBigA]

So, given the consolidation of radio stations these past 10 years, I'm wondering exactly why colleges need to teach broadcasting. They don't teach horse shoeing, do they?

There's a lot more to broadcasting than being on the air. And given the consolidation of radio stations, there are more jobs in broadcasting OFF the air than on it. That's why colleges need to teach broadcasting. But that doesn't explain the need for a university owning a radio station. One of the problems with student-run college radio is they don't see the rest of the iceberg, just the tip. The money for running the station simply appears. They don't have to raise it. That's a problem, and it's unrealistic. Having universities take these radio stations away from students is another lesson in the realities of broadcasting.

 

[recto101]

But wait KDFC who is owned by KUSC has to get the money from corporate donors and hardcore fans of classical who can send money to KDFC and KUSC and other non-profit stations and LPFM's to the same thing. KUSF failed because not many donors were willing to send money to KUSF.

 

[WarwickRadioFan]

Has USF/CPRN answered the FCC's Letter of Inquiry yet? Anyone seen the reply?

 

[DavidKaye]

There's a lot more to broadcasting than being on the air. And given the consolidation of radio stations, there are more jobs in broadcasting OFF the air than on it. That's why colleges need to teach broadcasting.

I went to College of San Mateo, the well-respected college that gave us the Giants' Jon Miller, KGO's Michael Amatori, tabloid TV reporter Steve Wilson, and others. The courses in our major were all about announcing, production, and engineering. We were taught nothing about station management, sales, accounting, or other behind the scenes aspects of broadcasting at all. And this was one of the top-notch schools in the industry.

But truth be told, station management, sales, and accounting aren't that much different from those same disciplines in other industries. If someone can sell supplies to restaurants they can probably sell ads to mattress stores. If they can do bookkeeping for a dentist they can probably find their way around a radio station's books.

So, what's left is announcing, production, and engineering. While engineering isn't a non-brainer, it's vastly simpler than it was 30 years ago. Today the non-transmitter stuff is largely computers and routers, and the transmitters are largely modular. And then engineers usually call in specialists to deal with antenna pressure leaks, modulators gone bad, and tower lighting.

That leaves us with announcing and production. Any 15 year old kid probably has a better mixing board in his room than most radio stations have. Announcing? Well, you don't need a college curriculum to teach announcing. That item could be combined with basic voice coaching. I developed by "Voice of God" voice from singing lessons, not announcing lessons. I developed my inflection not from announcing lessons but from theatre productions and writing.

That now leaves us with little to no need for a college-based broadcasting curriculum at all.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[TheBigA]

That now leaves us with little to no need for a college-based broadcasting curriculum at all.

Or am I missing something here?

I really think you're missing a lot. The schools I've been involved with combined broadcast journalism with broadcasting. That's a big area that's been overlooked. As one who's done both, there's a difference between writing for text and writing for sound. The more competitive schools are also including new media in the curriculum. I'd say that's the future of broadcasting. Once again, the way in which radio content is incorporated in web design is critical to the success of the site.

But for me, the thing that literally changed my life was broadcast management school. My college combined an MS in Broadcasting with an MBA. I was taught by some of the best and most experienced broadcasters in the world. Network Operations Managers, owners of major production companies, and corporate general managers. I'll confess very few schools do it, but I'd recommend it for anyone who thinks they want to devote their life to this business. I think one of the problems in broadcasting is that so many managers and sales people aren't broadcasters first. I think it makes a big difference, and so do the people who work with me.

 

[TheBigA]

That leaves us with announcing and production. Any 15 year old kid probably has a better mixing board in his room than most radio stations have.

That's a key point that really needs to be addressed, because it's been such a game-changer in broadcasting. The fact that basically anyone can do radio is the real challenge for the future. If a 15 year old kid can do it, it's not much of a profession. But just doing it isn't what separates the amateurs from the pros. It's the ability to do it well, consistently, in a strategic way, that maximizes all platforms, and delivers certified results that are the hallmarks of a professional. It's not the equipment the pro has, but the way he uses it. As Maria Muldaur once sang, "it ain't the meat, it's the motion." I think a lot of veterans in the business have been caught offguard by all the changes in the industry. They need to recognize that just being able to segue two songs together isn't the artform it used to be. The tricks that used to be difficult to master 30 years ago are now elementary to the typical radio geek. So the pros need to be able to advance their skills beyond what a 15 year old can do with Garage Band, and come up with something that will set the standard for the next generation. That's where a good college curriculum can come in. The goal isn't to teach someone how to open a mic or program Selector. That's for high schools and ITT Institute. The goal is to create the next generation of technology and new formats that will grow the business beyond where it is now.

 

[recto101]

I used to want to be a broadcasting major in High School but I dropped out of Broadcasting for Biotech and Pharmacy mainly because I figured in some areas of the world people might only use the web like Youtube, itunes and Live 365 and to be a broadcasting major you have to focus on TV and Radio. While graphic designer and computer programming focuses on web. For some people TV and Radio are obsolete.

 

[jprg]

I also went to the College of San Mateo in the mid 80's. Some great professors like Dan Odum, Doug Montgomery, etc. Splicing tape with razor blade and grease pencil on an old Ampex reel to reel, old-fashioned announcing on an old BE Board, times sales class with the old Arbitron books, cart machines, turntables.....yeah that was radio

 

[TheBigA]

For some people TV and Radio are obsolete.

The medium isn't obsolete. It's the mindset of the people. Think of how many old technologies we still use after centuries. The phone is older than radio. But somehow it seems much more modern. Ever wonder why?

 

[klewis]

You can't save KUSF when the University of San Francisco has to make budget cuts to all departments. Sure if you are a broadcasting major you need KUSF to get a feel how a real radio station works you'll be the first people outraged by this. But the Science departments have to cut the spending on new laboratory equipment too and I don't want to see it happen but its does happen.

much opposition comes from concerns about clear-cutting the left of the dial. losing a ton of programming unique to sf by selling of control of one of the few local sf frequencies focused on providing local public value to become a fundraising arm for usc, instead --are two more big reasons many are sticking with it. turns out usf is doing okay financially: http://m.sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/08/03/usf_spends_365m_on_a_very_grande_latte.php

 

[uncamark]

The problem I've seen with today's college radio is that I really think that the kids who are working at those stations don't want professional training because they don't want to be in radio unless it's college radio. Back when a lot of us were in school, I would say that the majority of us who participated in the campus radio station wanted to work in the industry in one way or the other. Since then, college radio has become a cog in an alternative music scene where musicians can make a living without having to have commercial radio airplay or a major label contract (or even big concert bookings save the big summer multistage festivals). And unless the station has a news department or does play-by-play of sports (and a lot of college stations have tossed sports off their schedule), it seems to me that the bulk of the air staff are people who hold anything that isn't college or volunteer-driven community radio in contempt and would rather be musicians or running their own indie labels or rock clubs than baby-sitting five voice-tracked CC stations (and don't forget, they consider NPR on the side of CC because NPR member stations took away KTRU, KUSF and WRVU--or so they think).

In addition, it seems like these kids do have much of an idea of how broadcasting works. In the instances of the college stations being taken over by pro pubcasters in the last year, in each city I've seen at least one instance of a seeming staff member moaning about Clear Channel wanting to take away their station. Hasn't anyone explained to these people that commercial owners can't touch FM frequencies below 92?

With all that (and a radio instructor at USF who says that teaching commercial radio practices is "not in the Jesuit tradition of USF"), it seems to me that college radio today is less a training laboratory and more a promotion and distribution conduit for independent alternative music (of all kinds) or a hobbyists' haven. The stations would probably be better off cut off of the college and run as community not-for-profit organizations (and give the colleges relief from possible programming or management headaches)--except, of course, that's something that's hard to do when the religious broadcasters and professional pubcasters are waving big wads of money (or promised money) at the financially-unstable colleges to give the stations to them.

 

[DavidKaye]

I also went to the College of San Mateo in the mid 80's. Some great professors like Dan Odum, Doug Montgomery, etc. Splicing tape with razor blade and grease pencil on an old Ampex reel to reel, old-fashioned announcing on an old BE Board, times sales class with the old Arbitron books, cart machines, turntables.....yeah that was radio

That's my point. None of that is relevant today. I haven't used tape in over 10 years. I record audio and video on flash drives or hard drives. I edit audio and video with software. There is no reason to teach about tape, splicing, razor blades, cart machines, turntables, etc. It's as useless to teach these things as it is to teach horse shoeing and repairing horse carriages.

 

[DavidKaye]

I really think you're missing a lot. The schools I've been involved with combined broadcast journalism with broadcasting. That's a big area that's been overlooked. As one who's done both, there's a difference between writing for text and writing for sound. The more competitive schools are also including new media in the curriculum. I'd say that's the future of broadcasting. Once again, the way in which radio content is incorporated in web design is critical to the success of the site.

Writing for reading and writing for sound have nearly merged. Back in the vaudeville and "grand theatre" days they were very different. But as radio and talkies came to dominate entertainment, the written and spoken styles began to merge. Today the merger is nearly complete what with blogs and texting.

But again, I don't see the usefulness of building a full broadcasting curriculum. Obviously, CSM agrees with this because a look at their broadcasting classes shows just a skeleton of what used to be. And for good reason: today there are fewer broadcast-specific kinds of jobs and fewer jobs in number. Meanwhile, the width and depth of computer related jobs has expanded exponentially in the past 20 years.