I Know the Answer......RE-regulation

[taylorengineer]

The sad answer to our local radio problem is.......yes, gang, RE-regulation of the industry.
Take ClearChannel, Cox,Cumulus, and the rest of the media conglomerations.....and BUST them up.
Just like big oil in the 20's......just like AT&T in the 80's
Seven AM's and 7 FM's.....that's all folks!
Whadya think?

 

[Anyacat]

Regulation can never return to pre-1996. But it can be stopped and that might not be a bad idea.

 

[KWYJIBO]

yeah but ATT just bought BellSouth ... so its come full circle.

 

[middlega]

Whadya think?

The first thing that comes to mind is that I seriously doubt there are enough competent (and I use the term loosely) players available and financially capable to run all the stations in existence if you go back to strict ownership limits. Heck, there don't seem to be enough now without limits.

It might have been better to keep the genie in the bottle originally, but I don't see any successful way of putting him back in there now.

 

[RTibbs]

I understand why you would want to re-reulate but ?I don;t see republicans or Dems re-regulate and forcing companies to sell-off assets. AT&T controlled basically a 100% of the market. According to Clear Channel's website they only control 9% of all station and 18% of all revenues. Not really an anti-competitive situation to warrant a break-up. And No I do not work for them.

http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden

 

[ssnake]

I understand why you would want to re-reulate but ?I don;t see republicans or Dems re-regulate and forcing companies to sell-off assets. AT&T controlled basically a 100% of the market. According to Clear Channel's website they only control 9% of all station and 18% of all revenues. Not really an anti-competitive situation to warrant a break-up. And No I do not work for them.

You don't need to look at the numbers in the aggregate. I'm taking Antitrust right now, and although Sherman Act analysis isn't applicable, a major part of Section 2 Monopolization claims is defining the relevant market. In other words, if you define the market narrowly (e.g., a radio market), the concentration is extremely high.

Until radio spectrum is no longer scarce, the solution has to be regulation.

XM and Sirius show us that, without regulation, one company could theoretically buy out all the AM/FM spectrum in the US. Look at the nationwide network of terrestrial repeaters. Look at DirecTV and EchoStar; without regulation, they would be one company by now.

 

[taylorengineer]

Snake, as usual, is correct. Radio spectrum is finite. There are only the frequencies between DC and light.....and then you have no more.
This has always been the basis for regulation. Early commercial broadcasting was chaos....intervention was neccessary to prevent interference.
The capitalistic argument that radio is only business and a business exists only for making a profit just does not hold water. Radio is also a public service....and with limited spectrum this public service must be insured by oversight. Market forces alone will not insure adequate performance.
With the advent of wireless IP these dynamics are about to change. Look for congressional action to take control of the internet in the near future.

 

[Mr Winston-Salem]

Limiting the number of stations per market to one AM and one FM with HD radio still allows a company, like CC, to have multiple formats. I could imagine a future where all you need is one station in a market and it becomes a brand instead of just a frequency, lets say: ClearChannel instead of 94.9 as an example, and in that ClearChannel brand you have several different formats to pick from. You could have different owners for all the stations on the dial and each dial setting have multiple formats to choose from. This would work for corporate radio and bring more ownership to the markets. It will also allow a company to have a large nationwide reach with their own brands of formats.

 

[taylorengineer]

You make an excellent point. With the advent of HD radio, every signal can potentially become 4 or 5 "channels" of news, music, etc. The argument for additional signals to "be competitive" is out the window.
Remeber....the argument corperate media made to Congress was that the pie slices had become too thin....they weren't making enough profit and the quality of the "product" was suffering. If only.....there was a way for them to make MORE profit.....then the quality of American media would skyrocket.
Just think.....no more mom and pop broadcast companies with their harelipped announcers and hobbled together technical plants. It would ALL be "corperate!" Great programming, great announcers, great facilities.....the best money could buy! That was the choice presented to Congress.....harelipps or pros.
We see, in retrospect, that the problem was incompetence at the corperate level, not too much competition. The large companies STLL have the same problems today....slices of the pie are still too small. But it is glaringly apparent that this is due to a complete lack of understanding of business fundamentals by the licensee, the corperate owners!
So....let them have a single channel and split it up however they wish. And let the bloodbath begin for splitting up the other properties. (I'm sure I would be here spewing complaints about that process too!)

 

[BDBopper]

I think the 1996 Regulation of the industry has made radio much worse than it was. However eventually that regulation will make radio better than it was. the regulation has allowed conglomerates to run the medium into the ground. There will be a point that the conglomerates will realize this and the fact that terrestrial radio isn't profitable anymore and bail all at once. then we will be back to local ownership and serving the public the way radio was meant to be. Not only that but the stations are going to be very cheap because Clear channel and their ilk will have relatively thrown them in the garbage can and left them for dead.

I ether see that, or the total opposite, every market listening to the same exact broadcast. I think the first prediction is more viable. But I my logic may be perverted somewhere.

 

[SalesWeasel]

I think the 1996 Regulation of the industry has made radio much worse than it was. However eventually that regulation will make radio better than it was. the regulation has allowed conglomerates to run the medium into the ground. There will be a point that the conglomerates will realize this and the fact that terrestrial radio isn't profitable anymore and bail all at once. then we will be back to local ownership and serving the public the way radio was meant to be. Not only that but the stations are going to be very cheap because Clear channel and their ilk will have relatively thrown them in the garbage can and left them for dead.

I ether see that, or the total opposite, every market listening to the same exact broadcast. I think the first prediction is more viable. But I my logic may be perverted somewhere.

Re-Regulation, including the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine would serve radio well. XM & Sirius have channels for BOTH parties -- such a shame that if you want both sides of the issues you have to pay for it.

 

[middlega]

or the total opposite, every market listening to the same exact broadcast.

Ding ding ding.

While "every" might be a bit extreme, that seems to me to be the most likely outcome of any move toward scattering stations across hundreds of owners.

 

[taylorengineer]

I totally oppose the Fairness doctrine. There is no way to enforce such a rule without squashing free speech.
I do support diverse ownership of media. This will insure equitable access to the airwaves for all viewpoints. I especially support the concept of "community radio" which, here in Atlanta, is WRFG. While most of the board and management are very liberal, some to an extreme, they actually do let all kinds of people particpate. It is, really and truly, a "people's station!"
The internet offers the most promise for future fairness in the media. God help us to keep the politicians from making a historical power grab for internet control.

 

[BDBopper]

Re-Regulation, including the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine would serve radio well. XM & Sirius have channels for BOTH parties -- such a shame that if you want both sides of the issues you have to pay for it.
[/quote]

I disagree with the fairness doctrine. That's a limitation for free speech. I don't know about you but if I was forced to talk out of both sides of my mouth I'd pull and Eric Cartman and exclaim "Screw you guys I'm going home" The Fairness Doctrine is as unconstitutional as McCain-Feingold. But of course no one seems to care about the Constitution these days. Most politicians deface it daily.

 

[SalesWeasel]

I disagree with the fairness doctrine. That's a limitation for free speech. I don't know about you but if I was forced to talk out of both sides of my mouth I'd pull and Eric Cartman and exclaim "Screw you guys I'm going home" The Fairness Doctrine is as unconstitutional as McCain-Feingold. But of course no one seems to care about the Constitution these days. Most politicians deface it daily.

It's not a limitation of free speech; if you operate a signal on the "public's" airwaves, have whatever show you want, just present both sides of the issues. It's not as if Kimmer will be required (or Rush, etc) to present both.