If we knew then what we know now...

[TheBigA]

back way from the keyboard… back away from. . . . "[/i]

Sure...it's always easier to be correct when there's no one around who can prove you wrong.

Take your cute little conspiracy theories back to the blogs where everyone will agree with you.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Since TheBigA was in the major markets - where major money and major players were already in the game - he's probably unfamiliar with what went on in markets 20+. Fran's a LOT closer to reality in those markets.

Big, your view is generally a top-down vista, not a bottom-up view. Don't discount the experience of others just because it differs from yours.

 

[TheBigA]

Big, your view is generally a top-down vista, not a bottom-up view. Don't discount the experience of others just because it differs from yours.

This isn't a matter of different experience. He's inventing a lot of stuff, or jumping to conclusions. He's also saying this bill was not discussed in the public, and I know that's just plain wrong. It's all in the Congressional Record, with exact time posted for each day. That's where I got all my information.

Also, there's this myth that the NAB was all for consolidation, and in the pockets of big owners. The NAB is a membership organization, and its income depends on the number of members. Consolidation would cut back on the number of members, and that would hurt their income. Russ Withers of Withers Broadcasting (who was a small group owner then and now) was on the NAB Board, and if the NAB did anything that was bad for small owners, he would have screamed. He didn't.A lot of big owners, like CBS, pulled out of the NAB in the early 90s. The biggest, most powerful owners at the time didn't buy lots of stations after 96. Everyone was expecting ABC to extend its dominance of radio, and it didn't. So I question Fran's "facts."

 

[adma]

As for public outcry, where is the outcry against Glenn Beck or people like that, who use their position on the air to advance political agendas? Now some of them are running for public office. That's not a good idea. The public doesn't care about concentration of opinion as long as they like and agree with the person pushing it. The public certainly doesn't want diversity of voices if it means people advocating gay marriage, that's for sure.

Er, if your frame of reference for "public" is one where there is no discernable outcry against Glenn Beck but absolutely one against gay marriage, you're definitely part of the problem...

 

[Fran]

Fran's a LOT closer to reality. . .

SirRox, the stories on how the NAB, and more specifically its President pushed for consolidation has been printed numerous times in a number of trades. The ’96 Bill was all about telephone, wireless and cable. . . publically, radio was an afterthought, if that. You could watch them debate the ’96 Bill for hours and never hear a word about radio.

All the NAB wanted from the ’96 Bill was the elimination of the 7/7 rule. Actually, many radio people figured that the 7/7 rule would be altered, but not to the degree that it was. The street talk was that the DOJ would not let the expansion get out of hand. . . so much for the DOJ and street talk.

The size of the expansion came about by the political contributions and the behind the scenes lobbying efforts of a handful of the consolidators using the NAB. Keep in mind, in 96 the NAB was suddenly one of the nation’s largest political contributors.

As a side note, the consolidators kept the NAB President in office until he voluntarily retired. Don’t you love stories with a happy ending.

 

[TheBigA]

All the NAB wanted from the ’96 Bill was the elimination of the 7/7 rule.

Hate to point this out, but 7-7-7 was eliminated in 1984.

The most interesting thing to me about this was that every purchase by Clear Channel and other big companies had to be approved not just by the FCC, but by the DOJ and the FTC. They were also open to scrutiny of media watchdog groups, community groups, and anti-corporate groups. Anyone could have stopped these sales from taking place, and no one raised a single red flag. So to create this fiction about the power of the NAB, and behind the scenes action ignores the fact that all of this happened out in the open, and no one objected. There isn't enough money to buy off all the people the conspiracy theorists say got bought off. It didn't happen. No NAB lobbyist could buy off Ted Kennedy or some of the other millionaires in Congress. They all voted for the bill, not because they were bought off, but because they felt it was the right thing to do.

The really funny part to me is that I know a lot of the employees who worked at these stations, and they all bought stock in their companies and made a lot of money as their companies grew. They'd brag about it to their friends who were still working at smaller companies. They also had 401Ks that were filled with company stock. The idea that only the top people made money as the radio companies grew is absolute fiction.

 

[davideduardo]

Hate to point this out, but 7-7-7 was eliminated in 1984.

.

Yep. In fact, here is a brief quote..."In 1984, the FCC proposed to ease the restrictions, but was rebuffed by Congress. The commission later came up with another plan, which established the first percentage-of-audience specification: 25 percent of the national TV audience, or twelve stations, whichever is less. Congress took no action to block this move, and this rule prevailed until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which raised the limit to 35 percent and killed the 12-station provision outright, and established a new set of rules for radio. "

And an anti-consolidation commentary on ownership is at http://www.dustbury.com/vent/vent342.html but the comments are based in facts with examples from the writer's home market, not fabrications and lies such as "fran" (perhaps the middle character from "Kookla, Fran & Ollie") have posted.

For one, I never worked at a station with a parking lot big enough for a black helicopter to land...

 

[gr8oldies]

Yeah the Bilderburgers must have sat in a room and said "let's get the law changed so we can buy all the radio stations and fire all the DJs! Wanna?"

 

[Fran]

[Hate to point this out, but 7-7-7 was eliminated in 1984.

Really? 7-7 was eliminated in ’84? Then should be an easy one for you. Just name “one” owner that owned 8FMs anytime in the eighties. Piece of cake for a knowledgeable person like you. . . just “one” owner . . . pick from ’85, ’86, ’87, ’88, ’89, and heck I’ll even throw in ’90, ’91, ’92. Please let me know how this works out for you.

PS - I am a bit surprised that no one has jumped in to support you by saying that their company owned 8FMs right after ’84. . . but hey, don’t let that bother you. . . you can always ask your buddy who claims to have been in a big market (likely while on vacation).

 

[davideduardo]

Really? 7-7 was eliminated in ’84?

Yes, and prior to 1996 we also had duopoly building. For example, Heftel owned 3 FMs and two AMs in the Dallas market prior to 1996. A number of companies either increased their station count in existing markets or added markets. These included Jacor, Clear Channel, Cox and a number of others in smaller markets, like Ingstead.

Cox, for example, had 3 FMs and an AM in LA in 1994, about two years prior to the more extreme 1996 change.

Back to Jacor. From a brief history of that company: " In 1984 Congress eased the radio ownership regulations somewhat and established the "rule of twelves." Under the new regulations, a radio company could now own up to 12 AM and 12 FM stations across the country. That year Jacobs began to seriously expand the company, acquiring WQIK-AM/FM, two stations in Jacksonville, Florida, for $5 million.

1985-89: Continued Growth

The Florida purchases were followed in 1985 with the acquisition of two stations in Cleveland, Ohio, for $12.8 million, and a move into the Georgia market with two stations and the Georgia Radio News Service for $20 million. In 1986 Jacobs purchased an FM station in Cincinnati for $9.3 million, and in December Jacobs merged Jacor with another Cincinnati radio company, Republic Broadcasting Corp. As a result of that transaction, Republic's head, Randy Michaels, joined the Jacor board.

The company continued to grow through acquisitions. In 1987 Jacor paid $24 million for two stations in Denver and in 1988 increased the company's presence in Florida by purchasing Eastman Radio, Inc. and two stations in Tampa, spending approximately $28.5 million."

Obviously, Jacor was well on its way to 12/12 soon after the rules changed. Read more on this one at http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Jacor-Communications-Inc-Company-History.html

PS - I am a bit surprised that no one has jumped in to support you by saying that their company owned 8FMs right after ’84. . . but hey, don’t let that bother you. . . you can always ask your buddy who claims to have been in a big market (likely while on vacation).

I think if you get a 1986 Broadcasting Yearbook (which would show the status towards the end of 1985), you will find the beginning of the expansion beyond 7/7 in radio... with multiple operators starting to increase towards the new caps... and then agressively growing when in-market caps were increased.

 

[Fran]

Cox, for example, had 3 FMs and an AM in LA in 1994, about two years prior to the more extreme 1996 change.

Really? And what exactly were the call letters of those ’94 Cox “owned” LA stations? They should be easy to identify, especially for a conversant person like you. Or, name the call letters of those three Heftel owned Dallas stations prior to ‘96. . . that too would make the case. And, oh yeah, there is a big difference between ownership and LMA stations. . .but you probably already knew that. Right?

 

[davideduardo]

Cox, for example, had 3 FMs and an AM in LA in 1994, about two years prior to the more extreme 1996 change.

Really? And what exactly were the call letters of those ’94 Cox “owned” LA stations? They should be easy to identify, especially for a conversant person like you. Or, name the call letters of those three Heftel owned Dallas stations prior to ‘96. . . that too would make the case. And, oh yeah, there is a big difference between ownership and LMA stations. . .but you probably already knew that. Right?

LA, Cox.
KFI Bought 1973
KOST Bought 1976
KACE / KRTO 103.9 and 98.3 Simulcast bought 1994.

Dallas
The Heftel stations were:
KHCK 99.1 (1994) Tejano 99
KDXX 107.1 (1994)
K--- 107.9 (now licensed to Lewisville)... station has changed calls several times.
KESS 1270 (1993) La Tremenda Kess
KINF 1440 (1993)
Deleted station in Corsicana, deletion of which allowed 107.9 to move.

None were LMA's. The sale data is on each station's file at the FCC website.

 

[gr8oldies]

So Fran you truly believe that 7/7/7 was in effect on Dec 31, 1995, the 12 rule never happened and Clear Channel bought 1200 stations in 1996? Really?

 

[amfmxm]

Another interesting conversation--if a tad unwieldy.

Big A, I seem to recall you mentioning in a previous thread that you were working on The Hill--or in some official capacity--or as a reporter (?) in DC--at the time of the '96 earthquake (the Telecom Bill). I've also worked in DC--great town. But you know what they say about "Inside The Beltway Syndrome"--you're so close to the action that you assume everyone sees what you see.

Problem is, you're also so close that--what's the saying about not being able to see the forest because of all them trees?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

So why is it everywhere I go I hear DIVERSITY of voices...... except when I turn on the radio?

I never understand this talk about "diversity of voices," because there is no precident for it. Ben Franklin didn't want a diversity of voices in Poor Richard's Almanac. It was simply one man's opinion. That is the heritage of the media in this country. The media really CAN'T present the full diversity of opinion. That's not the role. Just selected examples of what people are saying.

There is a truckload of humor and irony in your response. I don't buy many books. I am content to borrow them from the library. But last year there was a book I chose to own and I can only wish that every one in America that has anything to do with broadcasting would own this book and consult it over and over again.

Author Howard Fineman has compiled what he calls "The Thirteen American Arguments... Enduring Debates that Define and Inspire our Country".

Colonial America and the era of The American Revolution, including one Ben Franklin set the bar quite high for "Diversity of Voices". They argued over central bank or not. To this day people with political axes to debate invoke the names of, and sometimes name their interest-group after Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams or Washington or Franklin or Witherspoon. They argued over having each state be a dedicated enclave for one particular religious group or placing in our founding documents a restriction on state having any favoritism toward any one school of religious thought.

Hopefully our Board Editor will accept the following quote under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright laws:
Fineman comments in his introduction:

"In the most famous of all of the Federalist Paters, No. 10, the intellectual architect of the Constitution, James Madison, proposed that the multiplicity of "faction" was essential to a just and equitable society. The more Factions, the more disputes --- and the less chance for tyrannical rule, either from moblike majorities or p;ower-mad politicians."

I have this feeling that if we could arrange for a current-day visit from our long departed friend, Mr. Franklin would scoff at your one-dimensional description of his contribution to communications in our North American experiment in self-government.

He would make a great keynote speaker at the NAB convention.

 

[TheBigA]

But you know what they say about "Inside The Beltway Syndrome"--you're so close to the action that you assume everyone sees what you see.

Problem is, you're also so close that--what's the saying about not being able to see the forest because of all them trees?

You also get the facts and the truth, which is sorely missing from Fran's posts.

Believe what you want to believe, but everything I say is documented in the Congressional Record, and you can't argue with that. And you can call Russ Withers if you think my big city bias is coloring my views.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

None were LMA's. The sale data is on each station's file at the FCC website.

Good Morning, David. Maybe my question should be used to start a new thread. When did the concept of LMA's in their common current usage come about? Time Brokerage of limited time blocks has apparently been around for a long time. But the LMA of a station's entire inventory of time has to be much more recent.

I can remember when "trafficking" was not just a dirty word in the eyes of the FCC, it was the "kiss of death". I can do a short narration about the station in my hometown and it's original owner that would rival anything Gene Shepard ever broadcast. Though he was able to salvage the ownership of his first station in his hometown, it appears he received an invitation from the FCC to quickly and hastily dispose of everything else in his portfolio of broadcasting.... and a suggestion that future applications for ownership would not be well received.

 

[Fran]

So Fran you truly believe that 7/7/7 was in effect on Dec 31, 1995. . .

Actually, I did. But the bigger point was that companies could not own two FMs in the same market. The reason I believe that is because companies that wanted an FM/FM duopoly could get it done through an LMA, but not through an acquisition. LMA contracts were written where the LMA station could be purchased once the FCC permitted a duopoly (FM/FM) ownership. And the year that companies could turn their LMA station into a purchase was . . . . ?

 

[Stewy]

How differently do you think the busness would be today?

Would Telecom have been passed?

If so, would there have been as much consolidation?

How differently would the prices have been?

How much more talent and on-air quality would have preserved if we knew what the future held?

Some of us did see it, did foretell what the consequences would be but were shouted down over and over and over and told how stupid and short sighted we were, that we didn't see or understand the "big picture" that we'd never get to the "next level" though that "level" has turned out to be the sub-basement. Well, for one, I will say that being right and getting the last laugh is in no way compensation enough for what people and the industry have and are going through. I really hope that one lesson may have been learned by all from this, greed is just not good. I think I'll re-read the story of King Midas to my daughter this evening.

 

[davideduardo]

But the bigger point was that companies could not own two FMs in the same market.

Sure they could. I gave two pre-1996 examples, and there are several more in the Jacor history I provided a link for... they had FM duopolies in Jacksonville and Cincinatti, for example, very, very much before 1996.

The Dallas ones consisted of 4 FMs and 2 AMs (two were later "consolidated" into one move-in, but were inside the MSA all along. I know those stations because I was there prior to 1996.

The Cox LA set of 3 FMs and an AM existed prior to Telecom 1996, too. When Cox sold them, I was there on 2/11/2000 to push the button to launch KRCD/KRCV.

None of these was an LMA.

The reason I believe that is because companies that wanted an FM/FM duopoly could get it done through an LMA, but not through an acquisition.

Wrong. I just gave multiple exampes (and there are dozens more) of pre Telcom single market same band duopolies. Not LMA's

LMA contracts were written where the LMA station could be purchased once the FCC permitted a duopoly (FM/FM) ownership. And the year that companies could turn their LMA station into a purchase was . . . . ?

Since they were not LMA's, there was nothing to convert. Nice try at chimera building, though.