FCC Seeks Supreme Response

[TheBigA]

The FCC is taking the most recent appeals court decision about Ownership Rules to the Supreme Court.

http://www.insideradio.com/free/fcc...cle_c4ef662e-dac7-11ea-a0df-3fdd0e178d60.html

TTBOMK the FCC has been unable to enact ANY changes in radio ownership rules since the Telecom Act was approved in 1996. Almost 25 years! The law required that ownership rules be reviewed every FOUR years. Seems to me there have been some changes in the marketplace in the past 25 years. The courts have prevented the FCC from following the law.

 

[Kelly A]

I have no doubt that SCOTUS will punt this...again.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

The FCC is taking the most recent appeals court decision about Ownership Rules to the Supreme Court.

http://www.insideradio.com/free/fcc...cle_c4ef662e-dac7-11ea-a0df-3fdd0e178d60.html

TTBOMK the FCC has been unable to enact ANY changes in radio ownership rules since the Telecom Act was approved in 1996. Almost 25 years! The law required that ownership rules be reviewed every FOUR years. Seems to me there have been some changes in the marketplace in the past 25 years. The courts have prevented the FCC from following the law.

here come the peopel who say corporations should be forced to sell off stuff or turn in some licenses...... itll just end up costing jobs. ma and pa cant afford to buy millions of dollars worth of radio stations, and banks arent lending
a

 

[TheBigA]

here come the peopel who say corporations should be forced to sell off stuff or turn in some licenses.

That's what's happened every time the FCC has tried to change the rules. This time it was Prometheus who took them to court, and the 3rd circuit agreed. That's why the FCC is going the next step. It's been over 20 years without any changes. That was not what Congress intended when they wrote the 96 Act. These courts are trying to legislate from the bench.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

That's what's happened every time the FCC has tried to change the rules. This time it was Prometheus who took them to court, and the 3rd circuit agreed. That's why the FCC is going the next step. It's been over 20 years without any changes. That was not what Congress intended when they wrote the 96 Act. These courts are trying to legislate from the bench.

in some of the facebook groups im in, the guys talk about this stuff because they think they can legislate local radio back into existence.. not realizing msot every suggestion would cause a loss of jobs.

Have to be on 24/7 and lvie announcers? but i cant afford it, so ill just turn in the license

have to sell off some smaller markets.. but ma and pa cant afford $3 mil? turn in the licenses

ma and pa want a station but cant afford to staff it heaviy? ok... run all satelitte.. no betetr then what some bigger stations do

 

[TheBigA]

ma and pa want a station but cant afford to staff it heaviy? ok... run all satelitte.. no betetr then what some bigger stations do

It's actually worse than what the big companies do. Now with the Independent Broadcasters Association, they want to combine talent and sales at these small stations.

http://radioiba.org/

 

[davideduardo]

That's what's happened every time the FCC has tried to change the rules. This time it was Prometheus who took them to court, and the 3rd circuit agreed. That's why the FCC is going the next step. It's been over 20 years without any changes. That was not what Congress intended when they wrote the 96 Act. These courts are trying to legislate from the bench.

One of the victims of this stalemate is the FCC being impaired from changing the rules on newspaper cross-ownership

Being allowed to operate TV or/and radio with a newspaper could possibly have prolonged the life of print media as well as improving and expanding radio and TV news coverage from a shared newsroom.

I'm afraid that the window of opportunity is now closed for that. Newspapers can't afford to buy electronic media as they once could. And most TV or radio companies would not even consider buying a newspaper.

Those rules are twenty to twenty-five years out of date, created in an era when there was no internet, no smartphones and even no satellite.

 

[Delete My Account]

Now with the Independent Broadcasters Association, they want to combine talent and sales at these small stations.

http://radioiba.org/

I'm not so sure that's what their statement means. While they do promote a national sales platform, I think the talent part is more about offering a roster for voice tracking rather than duplicative programming. Most of the board members come from clusters that are highly localized and I don't think they're looking for more syndicated or national programming.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't think they're looking for more syndicated or national programming.

Maybe, but shared VT is not live or local. So what they're clearly looking for is talent efficiencies, which means fewer local jobs and less local programming.

Here's what they say: "Shared Resources - A system that allows sharing of that talent in non-competitive situations and reduces our dependence on national syndication that requires cash, barter and sometimes both."

So the only reason they don't like national syndication is the cost. They want to find a way to get the cost advantages (savings) without the cost disadvantages.

 

[Delete My Account]

Could be interpreted either way, imo. I don't see sharing "talent" as the same thing as sharing "programming." It sounds to me like talent doing shifts on other stations, not syndicating a show among them. I suppose it remains to be seen.

 

[TheBigA]

It sounds to me like talent doing shifts on other stations, not syndicating a show among them. I suppose it remains to be seen.

That's also an option for syndication. If you run Ryan Seacrest, you can carry a fully produced show, or use his hosted bits in between your own playlist. Same with Bobby Bones, Delilah, and several other shows I'm aware of. But we'll see how this develops. The main thing is they're looking for options to live & local.