FCC policies I question

[bobdavcav]

1. I don't really question this one, I understand the importance of the Emergency Alert System, but why don't more stations bury the weekly tests like they do with public affairs programming? Yes they are a lot shorter, but I would imagine for at least some people, they are as annoying as a commercial break, and to interupt a song just for the 3 long tones followed right away by the 3 short tones really doesn't make a lot of sense. Why not do the tests like overnight, and why don't they have a pre-programmed message saying "this is a test of the Emergency Alert System"? Seems a little odd to just run the tones. The ones that actually have the message on them, stations don't have much control over as those usually come from local authorities. However, why don't the stations have there own messages for there local tests and why don't they bury them in off hours like they do with other programming?
2. Speaking of public affairs programming mentioned earlier, what is the point? Now hear me out on this, I am not against radio stations serving there communities at all, in fact I, along with a lot of people on this board would like it if stations did more for the local community. However, what I am against is stations having to break format at a time when there is not likely to be anyone listening just to satisfy the requirements of the license. This is not to say that I would not do the same if I were the owner of a station, but I would drop the programming from my lineup as soon as regulations changed. This is not to say that I don't think something shouldn't be required, if the commission has to require certain types of programming to provide at least some form of community service, then it should do so. However, I really don't think the current regulations work well. Sure they are meant to serve the public, but how does it do so when the public isn't listening? So you might say why don't I propose to require something during drive times? I think stations do a good enough job as is in that daypart, and putting some form of the programming now heard on Sunday mornings in many areas on in drive time would only drive more listeners away from radio. So, you may think I will propose to return us to the days when stations were required to do a newscast at the top of every hour. That regulation might have been fine for its day, because there was not the instant information we have now. Back in the 70s, all you had was radio on the go, no internet. Even back then, TV stations most likely did not do anymore news than they do now, and if you got the newspaper in the morning, you would otherwise have to wait till the next newscast, whether that be on radio or TV. However today, we can get information instantly. Also back then, you didn't have any, or you had at least very few all news stations. Today, most markets have an all news operation, and I don't know about you, but when I turn on a CHR, I want hit music and I don't want it interrupted by news at the top of the hour, I can tune into the all news station for that. Also, I don't think today's companies would want that either.
3. Last question, why are pollitical adds required? If they are meant to serve the public there as well, then I suggest the FCC take another look at this regulation. Again, the internet has changed this significantly. I don't look at pollitical sites usually, but I do when it comes to ellection season, and I know my mom does as well. If the commission is really serious about this, they should tighten the rules for advertisers. The race for Attorney General here in Washington State is a prime example of the issue with pollitical adds. I am not clear on what changed, but the rules were changed to allow pacts to advertise where they couldn't before. In this race, the Republicans came out with an attack add against the Democratic candidate, then the Democrats came out with one equally as attacking on the Republican candidate, both of which were saying things about each candidate that just weren't true. Also, why require the ones that are payed for by the opposing candidate? Of course they will say whatever they think will convince you to vote for them, so they don't really inform at all, and with campaign season starting earlier and earlier, all they do is get really annoying. Enough of my ramblings for now.

 

[Darth_vader]

Uhh, boy......uhh, what is.........*psshhoo*...Mississippi?

"Hit Enter to Continue" for $1000, Alex...

 

[bobdavcav]

Huh? I actually got the joke you posted on my other thread, but not this one.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

1. I don't really question this one, I understand the importance of the Emergency Alert System, but why don't more stations bury the weekly tests like they do with public affairs programming?

You make a number of assumptions in this post. Maybe I can help you out on one or two; maybe I can convince you to do a bit of homework on your own.

Is it possible the EAS rules specifiy that the tests must be run in certain time periods now and then? I see two reasons for EAS tests.

1. The obvious: to make sure the system (and the equipment) is working.

2. To make the public aware such a system exists, so they might be so impudent as to turn on the radio when storms approach, when distant community sirens are blaring unusually. If broadcasters bury all the EAS test in time periods we assume are "dead zones" no one will know that EAS could be their friend.

2. Speaking of public affairs programming mentioned earlier, what is the point? Now hear me out on this, I am not against radio stations serving there communities at all, in fact I, along with a lot of people on this board would like it if stations did more for the local community. However, what I am against is stations having to break format at a time when there is not likely to be anyone listening just to satisfy the requirements of the license. This is not to say that I would not do the same if I were the owner of a station, but I would drop the programming from my lineup as soon as regulations changed. This is not to say that I don't think something shouldn't be required, if the commission has to require certain types of programming to provide at least some form of community service, then it should do so.

I posted this earlier today in the forum on Community Radio and Non-Commercial radio. It speaks to the question you have raised here.

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=206596.msg2023006#msg2023006

If I tried to diagram the sentences you just wrote, and tried to explain to a 9th grade class on writing what your position is, I would have to say: "A pretzel."

So, you may think I will propose to return us to the days when stations were required to do a newscast at the top of every hour. That regulation might have been fine for its day, because there was not the instant information we have now.

When was that era? I have no memory of a rule that required a newscast at the top of the hour.

3. Last question, why are pollitical adds required? If they are meant to serve the public there as well, then I suggest the FCC take another look at this regulation.

There are some rules about how your will price political advertising... if you choose to broadcast political ads... but could you quote for us the rule that requires stations to run political advertising.

Tanget thought: The political advertising landscape changed very significantly about two years ago, and it has nothing to do with the FCC and the rules of the FCC. The Supreme Court handed down a decision commonly called "Citizens United" which changed the 'rules' on who can buy advertising and can political advertising be paraded before the public without identifying who paid for the ad.

If you will GOOGLE Citizens United you will find enough reading material to keep you busy for the next six to 10 years. Did you notice during the Presidential campaign how often ads that were pro-Democratic and/or anti-Republican or anti-Romney included the clip of Romney proclaiming: "Corporations are people, too, my friend." That was part of the boiling tea-kettle over Citizens United.

 

[TomT]

The political advertising rules are complex, but yes, there are rules requiring the sale of air time to candidates. Very simply:

Political ads for state and local offices need not be aired. However, if a station sells air time for "Candidate A" they must also offer to sell air time to his opponent, "Candidate B."

Political ads for Federal offices (president, congress) must be sold if requested by those candidates. The only exception (essentially a TV exception) is where the time slot sought is already sold out.

 

[bobdavcav]

Thanks for the clarification and I will look at that link as soon as I am done writing this. As for the top-of-hour newscast, I thought that was a rule back in the 70s, but I could be wrong. On the pollitical advertisements issue, I thought that was a public file requirement or something. I do remember when I used to listen to KCMS, the pd would come on and explain something about why they aired pollitical advertisements, I don't remember the reasoning behind that at this time, but I thought it had something to do with government regulations. Again, though, I could be way off on this.

 

[bobdavcav]

Thanks for the clarification and I will look at that link as soon as I am done writing this. As for the top-of-hour newscast, I thought that was a rule back in the 70s, but I could be wrong. On the pollitical advertisements issue, I thought that was a public file requirement or something. I do remember when I used to listen to KCMS, the pd would come on and explain something about why they aired pollitical advertisements, I don't remember the reasoning behind that at this time, but I thought it had something to do with government regulations. Again, though, I could be way off on this.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

My apologies, bobdavcav. I was behind the times on the rules about having to make time available for the Federal offices of Congress, Senate and President.

 

[bobdavcav]

Not a problem! I imagine the FCC rule book is about a thousand pages of rules that owners need to at least loosely understand to keep the license in good standing and only really interests some of us radio geeks. Personally, I have better things to do than read up on FCC regulations for 24 hours a day, like watching for format changes and possibly recording them.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That is what makes these boards so intriguing... so entertaining. We all have our own "pet interests" that we pay attention to and we all have topics that do not interest us at all.

My "First Love" is what we used to call (many, many years ago) "Single Market Radio". Community radio. Being the only station in a small town and county. But those days are, for the most part, gone. Markets that should only have one station, maybe two at most now may be served by a cluster of multiple stations.

And if you can wrap your brain around the concept of an entire community being served by just one radio station, you soon come to realize that such a station can't be a slave to "format" as we know it today.

Today when I listen to radio I want to hear at least hints of the things that used to be a part of my "First Love". I want news at the local level, real news. I want to listen for a while and begin to get the feel of what is happening in the total community... not just the world of rock music, not just the world of the sports jocks, not just the world of the fire and brimstone Talk Radio crowd. I live at the edge of the Atlanta market. Our local NPR station has a lot of the elements I value. (NPR stations at the local level tend to take different directions when it comes to local content and what part of the national feed(s) they will choose to carry.

The FCC has an impossible job. They have to write rules and interpretations of the law that fit so many different situations. Writing rules that are workable and practical for use in New York City or in Chicago or in Atlanta creates problems for stations trying to serve the listeners in Berea, KY or in Marshfield, MO or maybe in Gila Bend, AZ.

Your original post brought up the subject of political advertising. The FCC decided it would be "equitable" for stations to serve their listeners by making sure that all Federal candidates had access to adequate advertising availability. Sounds reasonable and noble. Then state governments dominated by one party or the other write local laws that change voting hours and days, local laws that make people jump through hoops in order to get their hands on a ballot. The Supreme Court decides the "Citizens United" case.... watch it... here comes a bit of political bias.... and turns this year's Republican primary race into a "private party" where only the wishes of four or five billionaires have any traction. So if I were a station owner and I wanted to express my disgust to the political parties over all these corruptions of the process by refusing to let them use MY station, the FCC says to me: "Sorry Charlie, You have to serve the public, but YOU don't get to decide what constitutes "serving the public".

Now in fairness to our friends at the FCC. Let's assume they all look at my diatribe and say: The dude has some valid points. Let's change the rules so he can be a little bit like the Occupy Wall Street movement. He can be Occupy The Radio Dial. How would they write a law that allowed me to do that... that would still be appropriate for the next election cycle which will bring it's very own ways to warp and shape how we elect people.

 

[w9wi]

Thanks for the clarification and I will look at that link as soon as I am done writing this. As for the top-of-hour newscast, I thought that was a rule back in the 70s, but I could be wrong.

There used to be a requirement that, when applying for a new station or to renew an existing license, you had to make certain promises as to how much public-service, news, religious, and other types of programming you'd air. Presumably an applicant that promised to air 5 minutes of news every hour would get the channel, if competing with someone who only promised 1 minute.

That requirement went away, I want to say in the late 1970s, it might have been the early 1980s.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There used to be a requirement that, when applying for a new station or to renew an existing license, you had to make certain promises as to how much public-service, news, religious, and other types of programming you'd air. Presumably an applicant that promised to air 5 minutes of news every hour would get the channel, if competing with someone who only promised 1 minute.

I don't know when this changed, but back in the 50s and the 60s your application specified what your programming would be. When applications were listed in the back of Broadcasting Magazine, they would print that "the application indicates that the station will program Country Music" and the assumption in the industry was that if you were applying to be the second, third or fourth station in a geography, you better do a good sell job on why.... if your programming intentions duplicated something already being done in that market place. This part of my memory is a bit dim, but I think in that era we began to see people apply for stations indicating one kind of programming, and once they got on the air, they would find some excuse, some justification for changing formats and doing something different than what was in the application. This was the era just before the "disk jockey" became the big, big feature of radio.... and programming formats became something of an exercise like "Musical Chairs" at some kids birthday party.

 

[davideduardo]

There used to be a requirement that, when applying for a new station or to renew an existing license, you had to make certain promises as to how much public-service, news, religious, and other types of programming you'd air. Presumably an applicant that promised to air 5 minutes of news every hour would get the channel, if competing with someone who only promised 1 minute.

An application, or a renewal app, had a statement of the amount of time to be dedicated to News, Public Affairs and Other (Religion, Education, etc). Generally, an AM that promised a total of 8% of weekly hours among these and an FM with 6% would get renewed.

As to new station apps, if there were a competitive application, then the FCC would evaluate which offered the best package. Things like working capital, integration of ownership with local management, localism of ownership, etc., were considered along with the promise as to non-entertainment programming. Even things like maximum use of an FM channel or best facility on an AM would be considered.

That requirement went away, I want to say in the late 1970s, it might have been the early 1980s.

80's it is. Every renewal I filed in the 70's had the promises, the composite week, the horrendous and abusive community ascertainment...

Then we went and dumped 12 minute newscasts in overnights and played music during the important hours. One of my competitors paraphrased the supermarket tabloid stories as news.

 

[davideduardo]

Thanks for the clarification and I will look at that link as soon as I am done writing this. As for the top-of-hour newscast, I thought that was a rule back in the 70s, but I could be wrong. On the pollitical advertisements issue, I thought that was a public file requirement or something. I do remember when I used to listen to KCMS, the pd would come on and explain something about why they aired pollitical advertisements, I don't remember the reasoning behind that at this time, but I thought it had something to do with government regulations. Again, though, I could be way off on this.

There was never a rule that specified when news had to be broadcast. In fact, there never was a rule as to how much, if any, news had to be broadcast.

However, in the 70's there was a promise (called a commitment) to news, Public Affairs, Religious and Other programming that you made to get a license or to renew it.

I managed (and had small equity in) stations in what is today a Top 15 market all during the 70's. We dumped almost all our news in overnights, with some headline news summaries in morning drive. The rest of the day and all during weekends we had no news at all.

Political contracts and rate inquiries had to be put in the public file and lowest unit rate rules applied to certain races. In the same case as mentioned above, I put in a uniform rule that no candidate, party or issue could buy more than 15 spots a week, and my policy was run by the FCC and found enforceable... the idea was not to fill the stations (AM and FM) with too many political ads. So there was some flexibility in how one complied with the rules, too.

 

[bobdavcav]

I wish every station had a rule like that, those political adds can get really annoying, especially when they start 4 months before the election. As for the format requirements, I think Canada still has that. I think some people on the Seattle board would like those back about now, look at the KPTK situation. Do we really need that many sports stations in this market and no progressive talk station? I would imagine that the public affairs programming currently heard on Sunday mornings on most radio stations runs similarly to how the news programming was done back then?

 

[radioboy]

Regarding EAS, there are certain times/hours that it has to be aired. It can't be buried in overnights or graveyard times.

A daytimer I managed several years ago generally had to run it between 8:30 am and 6 pm.

 

[willdav713]

Thanks for the clarification and I will look at that link as soon as I am done writing this. As for the top-of-hour newscast, I thought that was a rule back in the 70s, but I could be wrong. On the pollitical advertisements issue, I thought that was a public file requirement or something. I do remember when I used to listen to KCMS, the pd would come on and explain something about why they aired pollitical advertisements, I don't remember the reasoning behind that at this time, but I thought it had something to do with government regulations. Again, though, I could be way off on this.

There is still a requirement under the FEC and State and Local Campaign Finance Laws. PAC's still have to report it on the appropriate form. Every locality is different.

Not for profit channels are prohibited for airing political advertising. Debates are a different matter.
I couldn't air my mayoral campaign on PBS for instance.

Public Access is a different story. But it all depends on the locality and it's Campaign Finance Laws.

It is a question for your City Clerk or Elections Administrator.