If I Were The Super FCC Commissioner...

[PTBoardOp94]

A radio which tunes to 70.1 MhZ would cost what, $10? Roughly The same as a current radio?

A radio which tunes HD broadcasts costs what, $70 and up? No comparison.

 

[TheBigA]

A radio which tunes to 70.1 MhZ would cost what, $10? Roughly The same as a current radio?

A radio which tunes HD broadcasts costs what, $70 and up? No comparison.

You're missing the point. It's not the cost. It's the fact that it's a radio.

 

[adma]

A Mantovani record with exemplary production values is still a Mantovani record, IOW.

 

[TheBigA]

A Mantovani record with exemplary production values is still a Mantovani record, IOW.

Not exactly. There are companies that make internet radios. They allow people to find their favorite internet radio station as easily as a push-button car radio. Whether it's last.com, Pandora, or your favorite out of town stream. And, to put it mildly, they're not flying off the shelves.

People already have radios. They usually have several of them. They don't need another. Even if it gets an additional 50 stations, and those additional stations have content they might want, there are thousands of other ways to get basically the same content without buying a new radio.

Case in point: Howard Stern. He had a national audience of about 20 million people if you added the ratings of all his terrestrial stations together. When he went to Sirius, his audience went to about a million and a half. And, to make it worse, he's now available in markets where his terrestrial show wasn't available, so his potential universe is greater, and he still lost 90% of his audience. What this says is that a large number of his fans didn't feel it was worth it to buy a new radio so they could continue to hear him. Even for unique content that they would, under normal circumstances, want to hear. They're just not buying radios. For any reason.

Some people use the TV example. Lots of people bought HDTVs. But they didn't buy them for the content. Or even because they were digital or high definition. They bought them because they were status symbols. At the same time HDTV was being introduced, manufacturers also introduced flat-screen TVs that were lighter, brighter, and bigger. THAT was why people bought new TVs. Not because there was some show on it they couldn't get on the old tube TV. Try and apply that thinking to radio. What radio is a status symbol? Name it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Case in point: Howard Stern. He had a national audience of about 20 million people if you added the ratings of all his terrestrial stations together. When he went to Sirius, his audience went to about a million and a half. And, to make it worse, he's now available in markets where his terrestrial show wasn't available, so his potential universe is greater, and he still lost 90% of his audience. What this says is that a large number of his fans didn't feel it was worth it to buy a new radio so they could continue to hear him. Even for unique content that they would, under normal circumstances, want to hear. They're just not buying radios. For any reason.

Yeah, Stern's audience drop-off was all because people would have to buy a $50.00 radio. It had nothing to do with the fact that they'd have to shell out $13+ dollars a month to get the content that they once got for free.

Wi-Fi radios are out there, but you have to have ubiquitous free wireless Internet access to make them work. How many people have that? They're cheaper than HD radios, but they're still $100 or more for a decent one. And how much relevant content can they get that they can't get from their existing radio for free?

You forgot cell-phone aps. How many people actually listen to music on their iPhone, or watch video on a 3" (diagonal) screen? Especially if cranking up the ear buds eats up the battery even faster.

You're missing the point. It's not the cost. It's the fact that it's a radio.

Why does someone who's so anti-radio bother to spend so much time on a radio board? According to you, current music sucks, and current radio sucks. Well, is it really the music, and/or a lack of talent, or is it just BAD CORPORATE MANAGEMENT in BOTH industries getting in the way of ENTERTAINMENT - an industry that they truly don't understand.

 

[TheBigA]

And how much relevant content can they get that they can't get from their existing radio for free?

The point is...they're not buying radios. ANY radio. So if the commission enlarges the FM band to add more stations, but people need to buy a new radio in order to hear them, those stations will go unheard. Regardless of content.

Why does someone who's so anti-radio bother to spend so much time on a radio board? According to you, current music sucks, and current radio sucks. Well, is it really the music, and/or a lack of talent, or is it just BAD CORPORATE MANAGEMENT in BOTH industries getting in the way of ENTERTAINMENT - an industry that they truly don't understand.

I don't know where you come off saying *I'M* "anti-radio," when all you do is post your hatred of owners and managers.

My point is not that radio sucks, but people aren't buying radios. That's not a comment on the quality of radio. It's a comment on buying habits.

 

[davideduardo]

Work with Canada and Mexico to eliminate channels 4, 5, and 6 from the TV band, and convert those to FM radio channels.

Neither nation needs to do that, and likely would not want to. Mexico is undergoing a transition where they are moving nearly all AMs to FM in the current band. Canada has moved 60% of its AMs to FM, and would seem to have no need for an expanded band.

1) Any licensee with two or more stations in the same metro area broadcasting identical programming could consolidate on to one channel in the new portion of the band that covers at least 95% of both stations' original service areas, but would surrender both original licenses. The new station would be required to be licensed to one of the original stations' COL. The original licenses go back up for auction.

There are 700,000,000 to 900,000,000 radios in the US. What this suggests is death for stations that have carved out a niche by simulcasting on lower powered FMs in a metro area, or which are using multiple signals to cover a market, like San Francisco, that can not be covered by a single FM.

So, taking the case of KBUE and its simulcast partners KBUA and KEBN, all A's, in the LA metro, the operation would go from a top 10 to 12 rating to zero initially, and from billing $25 million to perhaps $0. And if you allowed a transitional simulcast, nobody would buy the radios.

Lots of radios are in cars. The average age of a car is now approaching 9 years in the US, so it would take nearly two decades to flush out all the old radios, and few people are going to go and have some kind of adapter installed.

2) Any FM station using translators would have the opportunity to consolidate both the parent station and the translators on one allocation between 82.1 and 87.9 MHz. The new allocation must serve the original station's COL.

Same situation, but worse. Further, the concept of city of license was always a misguided effort by the FCC to achieve localized service... which is why we only have low powered AMs in the US, and lots of near useless Class A FMs.

The US has too many stations, about half of which are not viable. It's not about creating more of them. Look at the two neighbors you mentioned... both have a vastly lower number of stations indexed to the population than the US does. If any issue is core to the revenue and service issues of radio today, it is the overpopulation of stations and their inability to thrive.

 

[davideduardo]

Yeah, Stern's audience drop-off was all because people would have to buy a $50.00 radio. It had nothing to do with the fact that they'd have to shell out $13+ dollars a month to get the content that they once got for free.

It's more about the fact that most satellite installs are in the car, and to listen to Stern all morning, you would need a radio, and subscription, at home and at work... and in lots of places, the signals indoors are not beautiful.

You forgot cell-phone aps. How many people actually listen to music on their iPhone, or watch video on a 3" (diagonal) screen? Especially if cranking up the ear buds eats up the battery even faster.

You may not travel a lot. I see people who travel routinely using these apps and watching videos and YouTube and such on phones. I just asked a family member who goes to UCLA and another who is in a junior college, and they said that "everyone does that."

Well, is it really the music, and/or a lack of talent, or is it just BAD CORPORATE MANAGEMENT in BOTH industries getting in the way of ENTERTAINMENT - an industry that they truly don't understand.

The music industry made lots of bad decisions based on protecting brick and mortar and trying to keep physical product the norm.

But radio has had a long-term problem, which is overpopulation of stations, including lots of stations that are just horrible technical facilities and not viable. Many of them lose money. But their presence drives rates down, and splits the revenues... survivable during good times, but disaster in a near-depression. No degree of management skill can make a recession anything but bad.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But radio has had a long-term problem, which is overpopulation of stations, including lots of stations that are just horrible technical facilities and not viable. Many of them lose money. But their presence drives rates down, and splits the revenues... survivable during good times, but disaster in a near-depression. No degree of management skill can make a recession anything but bad.

Trying to come up with changes in the number of radio stations that should exist, the quality that should be the minimum allowable would be a political exercise as loud and rowdy as the current debate over medical care in the U.S. We will probably continue to bounce along, holding our noses (or our ears) and somehow dream that maybe the problem will eventually reconcile itself without us going to the political pain (as a nation) to forge a solution.

We can live without radio if we have to, so we don't buckle down and face the fights. We can "live" without health care change, or at least for the last 30, 40, 60 years we have lived with the dream that maybe the problem will eventually reconcile itself without us going to the political pain of forging a solution. We can LIVE with the problem but we DIE (early) because of the problem or live with the pain and inability to function.

We can ignore the broadcasting problem by just turning off the radio as listeners, and selling the property to someone else as licensees. In health care, we can't turn off pain or turn off death, so finally we have decided to have the political dogfight of all dogfights over health care.

The fight over music royalties may euthanize a big part of radio and save us from our political impotency.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

It's the fact that it's a radio.

I was recently talking with some relatives (30-somethings) who say they don't even own a radio, and then profusely apologized to me for bringing it up.

Certainly you're right: someone who doesn't use the radio at all wouldn't rush out and buy a new radio capable of receiving 71-108 mHz.  But someone who is used to listening to Rush on 770 kHz and found out that he would begin broadcasting only on 77.1 MhZ would probably make that (small) investment.

And I did say Rush on 770 kHz rather than Country on 650 kHz for a reason. I feel there is higher loyalty to talkers than to music formats.

 

[TheBigA]

But someone who is used to listening to Rush on 770 kHz and found out that he would begin broadcasting only on 77.1 MhZ would probably make that (small) investment.

The chances of a station doing that are non-existant. And Rush's syndicator also wouldn't allow it. They need the largest audience possible to pay his huge salary.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

If the commission required it, they would do it.

 

[TheBigA]

Program syndicators aren't governed by the FCC. A station can't move a syndicated show from one station to another without getting approval from the syndicator. That changes the terms of the agreement. The syndicator would object and move the show to one of the remaining stations in the main part of the dial.

But realistically, the FCC is not going to make any of these kinds of moves. They don't have the interest, desire, or budget.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I'm under the impression that the FCC would delete 530-1700 kHz and stations on that band to the VHF-low band, whether the station management wanted to or not. Syndicators would have to move their program somewhere, might as well be the same station on a reconstituted band.

I agree that it won't happen in practicality.