No matter how many times you repeat this story, I can't think of any rated markets in the U.S. where radio stations shut down and the frequencies went silent. Even if a station did lose money to the point of not surviving, there would have been another operator willing to buy it and take over. It sounds more like the storytelling of that era by big business interests with something to gain, than reality.
While I can't think of any Class B or C FM's in Top-100 markets that have gone silent, AM's have been going dark for the last 35 years. At the time, stations could be dark longer than a year and could still come back. The lack of a shot clock likely saved a few. I can think of a couple of stations off the top of my head that would likely have been lost had the rules established in 1996 been in place. Granted, neither is in a Top-100 market, but 102.7 in Terre Haute was off the air for over a year around 1990 as was 107.5 in Clovis, NM (which, I believe, is once again in bankruptcy). The pace has accelerated recently. The leading Top-40 station in Albany when I was born, for example, was dismantled a few years ago so the land could be sold.
Financial studies paid for by whom?
While there is some truth to the notion that nobody can study anything without being provided the funding, studies like the ones David is referencing published their methodologies and results. Anyone who wanted to dispute them could've run them again (with or without the same variables). In the summer of 1995, plenty of groups opposed what the new congress was hoping to do with broadcast ownership limits and could've presented their own findings. One example, by the way, was the Coalition for Broadcast Diversity; it was well-funded and generally supported lifting the national ownership caps while keeping local limits in place. Entercom, of all groups, was a major player in it. The irony of Entercom standing up for the little guy was ironic even then.
So how did Americans benefit from that?
Something to keep in mind is that, despite the problems Docket 80-90 caused for station owners, the audience liked the additional choices. The legacy AM Top-40 stations failed for several reasons, and one was that the audience generally didn't like the broadly programmed "all things to all people" approach they tended to make when they didn't have the extra competition. Being on AM was also a problem for most, but moving to FM didn't help most of them. That was because they kept operating like they did when they were on AM, and the audience didn't like that when it had alternatives. The new stations either signing on or moving in provided narrower, more focused programming. I don't know if you remember radio around 1990, but I remember San Antonio having five oldies stations (860 and 930 on AM, 99.5, 101.1, and 105.3 on FM) because everyone wanted to chase the 25-54 demo. Consolidation got rid of three of them and provided service to an audience that was either unserved or not as well served.
Clear Channel grew from from 40 to over 1,200 radio stations, went bankrupt, then changed its name because everyone hated them. Every big consolidated radio broadcaster has now gone bankrupt and/or is losing money. So we've traded small local companies going bankrupt to big behemoth companies going bankrupt while losing local programming diversity in the process. Does that seem like a winning hand to you? Why should the FCC double down on it even more?
While you have some inaccuracies in those statements, I have found myself making a similar argument that, whatever you might think about consolidation, it probably hasn't worked out as hoped. Small local companies going bankrupt (and plenty did) is arguably more perilous for the station licenses and to the listening audience than a large company going broke because the latter will have a better chance of continuing business as usual while it goes through the bankruptcy process, but the four largest consolidators filing bankruptcy isn't a success. I would also assert that programming diversity, at least at the local level, generally improved after consolidation. Again, look at San Antonio. Is programming more diverse with five oldies stations or with two?
Actually, during the 1994 and 1996 loosenings, Bill Clinton was president. And the 1996 loosening resulted from a law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton and not from FCC regulations
The first loosening of local radio ownership caps occurred in 1992 a few months before Bill Clinton's election. He was President when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed, and he was the one who signed it. While more Democrats opposed it than Republicans, it received bipartisan support.
Don't the ownership limits also apply to Educational Media Foundation and other religious and non-commercial entities? If so, then K-Love won't be buying everything in town that's in trouble.
Of course, the ownership limits apply to everyone, and, no, K-Love won't be buying up everything, at least not anytime soon. Having said that, no one seems to be able to explain who these mystery commercial buyers are who will buy everything else.
