If we knew then what we know now...

[TheBigA]

Great. As soon as the FCC can tell me what "public interest, convenience, and necessity" means, we'll start to comply. Until then, we interpret as we want. Same with obsenity. And any other vagueries in the law.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm in favor of radio being completely deregulated as soon as everyone can own a viable piece of the electromagnetic spectrum for the price of a laser printer. Until then, the public owns the spectrum, and licensees are obligated to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity as a condition of licensing channel space.

And who is to say that playing soft AC with no news, limited chatter and lots of music is not in the interest of a segment of the public?

When the government starts legislating taste, and mandating program content is exactly that, we end up with the absurd rules of the 60's and 70's. Today, with entertainment options by the tens of thousands, radio is not a necessity (to borrow a term) for anyone. If radio has to do things someone who "knows what the public needs" tells it, then listeners will leave and the eventual end of the delivery content by AM and FM will occur much faster than anyone can imagine.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Chill, boys.

I'm not arguing formatics, content, or anything else here. Simply pointing out why radio is regulated while other media that have unlimited access are not.

As far as defining the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is concerned, I'll let the lawyers argue over that. It is, however, still legally in force, and there is a significant body of case law to draw from in making decisions regarding programming.

Radio also has unparalleled reach, and is the most important medium during a disaster. It's portable, ubiquitous, and will run for a long time on batteries - not to mention solar or hand-cranked power. It's centralized, which means that restoring power to one location can serve a much wider area than cell phones - which rely on an ever-growing number of transceivers that server ever-smaller areas.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As far as defining the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is concerned, I'll let the lawyers argue over that. It is, however, still legally in force, and there is a significant body of case law to draw from in making decisions regarding programming.

When I began in radio, the license renewal application was prepared every three years with much anxiety. There was this concept that a competing application could come out of the blue with the newcomer promising better public interest, more convenience, and widening the definition of necessity.

There was also this lingering fear that "the community".... I don't know who could have qualified as community.... maybe the chamber of commerce, maybe the city council, but there was this concern that "the community" might send a message to the FCC saying: "We the community find the current licensee to be lifeless and disappointing." And the fear was that the FCC would refuse to renew and open up the frequency for new applicants.

Maybe someone older than I, and with a better memory than I, or maybe with a rat-pack set of clippings can clarify this memory, but my trick-playing-memory seems to think that back then there were times when some "trouble maker" would occasionally file a competing application at renewal time.

And when there were competing applications to obtain a C.P. for a new frequency in a community, the FCC in that era was brash enough to think they could sift the applicants by examining their proposals to deal with the issues of public interest, convenience and necessity. It was that era that produced some "case law examples" on the topic.

Today's conventional wisdom is that we as a nation have become smarter and more rational and we now know that it is impossible to judge those three characteristics so we say today they can't be defined, so don't even go there. Today's minority-opinion*** is that we are too chicken and too political to do the hard, dirty work of examining those elements and thus we have our current bland and highly useless programming.



***the term minority-opinion is used here in it's classic Robert's Rules of Order concept.

 

[Fran]

How many lobbyists were on the hill trying to defeat the ’96 Bill? Name one.

How many lobbyists had a big sack of cash to challenge the hundreds-of-thousands (or perhaps millions) that the NAB was handing out to persuade congress to pass the bill? I recall that it stuck me odd when one of the networks displayed the logos of the largest political contributors that year. . . in the middle of the pack was the NAB. The NAB??

In January of ’95 (the last big NAB convention before the Bill became law), there was little to nothing said or written about that thing called the Telecommunications Bill. Even in the NAB newsletter, there was nothing about the bill.

Because there were LMAs, there were questions about how many stations could a company operate in a market. The head FCC commissioner was at that NAB and blew off questions about radio companies operating a third station in a market. The commissioner would have made a great captain of the Titanic. Radio is too big to sink, not to worry.

The behind the scenes efforts to get the ’96 bill passed was impressively stealth. 99.9% of those in radio had no clue that the biggest media heist in history was in progress.

Because of the growing popularity of the net, and how to maneuver through it, I doubt that the ’96 Bill could have been passed five years later. . . .by then too many opposing voices and opinions would have likely made the bill too publically controversial.

 

[TheBigA]

How many lobbyists were on the hill trying to defeat the ’96 Bill? Name one.

This is often used as an excuse against legislation that someone doesn't like. The fact is that there were numerous lobby groups opposed to the 96 Act, including the RIAA and Common Cause. As for sacks of cash, I'd like to see proof. Just because an industry group has resources doesn't mean they use them, and it doesn't mean anyone in Congress has to accept, or even if they accept, they have to do what they agreed. Lots of examples of people in Congress telling lobbyists they'll do one thing, and then vote for another. There were only a small number of people in Congress with vested interests here.

The NAB doesn't always get what it wants. It didn't want LPFM, and lost. It doesn't want the Performance Rights Act, and that's 50-50 right now. So don't assume that they always get what they want.

Back before WW2, any citizen could walk into the White House and lobby the President or members of Congress directly. That's the American system.

In January of ’95 (the last big NAB convention before the Bill became law), there was little to nothing said or written about that thing called the Telecommunications Bill. Even in the NAB newsletter, there was nothing about the bill.

Sort of proves my point that this was not a tool of the NAB. De-regulation of broadcasting was part of Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America in 1992. But Al Gore began his effort for it in 1994. The Act was written by 1995, and passed the Senate on June 15, 1995, long before the 95 NAB radio convention. So we all knew what was going on by then.

The behind the scenes efforts to get the ’96 bill passed was impressively stealth. 99.9% of those in radio had no clue that the biggest media heist in history was in progress.

Al Gore went on a public speaking tour that included Letterman and other talk shows to promote the bill in 1995. Comments from the public were solicited. But this was a very different time. It was less contentious. Compare it with the Powell proposal in 2002. By then, agendas were entrenched and nothing could get done.

As far as it being a “heist,” that’s a load of crap. Today, the critics say these companies overpaid for their stations. Which is it? It can’t be both.

 

[TheBigA]

It is, however, still legally in force, and there is a significant body of case law to draw from in making decisions regarding programming.

Yep, and everyone follows the speed limit laws, even if there's no police present.

 

[amfmxm]

How many lobbyists were on the hill trying to defeat the ’96 Bill? Name one.

How many lobbyists had a big sack of cash to challenge the hundreds-of-thousands (or perhaps millions) that the NAB was handing out to persuade congress to pass the bill? I recall that it stuck me odd when one of the networks displayed the logos of the largest political contributors that year. . . in the middle of the pack was the NAB. The NAB??

In January of ’95 (the last big NAB convention before the Bill became law), there was little to nothing said or written about that thing called the Telecommunications Bill. Even in the NAB newsletter, there was nothing about the bill.

Because there were LMAs, there were questions about how many stations could a company operate in a market. The head FCC commissioner was at that NAB and blew off questions about radio companies operating a third station in a market. The commissioner would have made a great captain of the Titanic. Radio is too big to sink, not to worry.

The behind the scenes efforts to get the ’96 bill passed was impressively stealth. 99.9% of those in radio had no clue that the biggest media heist in history was in progress.

Because of the growing popularity of the net, and how to maneuver through it, I doubt that the ’96 Bill could have been passed five years later. . . .by then too many opposing voices and opinions would have likely made the bill too publically controversial.

Bingo. We must have been at the same NAB meetings in '95, because that's how I remember it, too.

And what little chatter there was in the general press (Big A's reference to Gore on Letterman?) was about the telephone industry. It was a cell phone bill. After the fact, I recall reading that the radio provisions were a small part of the act and that Clinton went along with the NAB-written deal in exchange for getting support for what really mattered--the telephone legislation.

Like many other aspects of political life, whether one favors consolidation or not depands largely on one's preference for oligopoly--rule by a few (or its first cousin, monopoly)--or a more participatory society.

I'll take the view that the greater number of participants in an industry like radio--a "content" driven biz--the better. But there are a significant number of Americans who sincerely believe that it is better to allow the richest and most powerful people to own as much as they can afford or wish to buy, including media. That is what unimpeded capitalism is all about. Wal-Mart is better than local grocers/clothiers/shops... Home Depot is preferable to local hardware stores... and having Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel own all the radio stations in your town is better than having you as a licensee.

Yeah, it was a "heist." And if it had not been conducted as a "stealth" job by NAB insiders (yeah, some palms were certainly greased), the radio industry of the time--the thousands of small companies constituting the industry--would never have allowed it to happen.

 

[gr8oldies]

Wal-mart and Home Depot are there because people like them and prefer to shop there, rather than paying three times as much, paying for parking, and only being able to shop a limited number of hours per day.

I don't believe you could have gotten "the public" all riled up about "OH MY GOD A GUY IN SAN ANTONIO IS GOING TO BUY ALL OF YOUR RADIO STATIONS!" They wouldn't know the difference between that and the parking garage company that use to own some of them. Even now, if I walked up to people outside a concert a radio station is sponsoring and tried to explain why the station sponsoring the concert should have its license reassigned to some rich individual (sorry, no poor individuals are going to be able to get the licesnse), they wouldn't get it. In fact, most of the stations in my market are doing about what they were doing in 1995 (at least the major signals). We didn't have a bunch of stations all playing eclectic music.

Even if we knew, would anyone but radio station employees care? I'm guessing even telling folks "all your local DJs are going to be FIRED!!!" would bring a response of "so?".

 

[amfmxm]

Didn't say nuthin' 'bout no "public"--I said that the thousands of small companies (proprietors, partnerships and very small corporations) would never have let it happen. But, frankly, if there had instead been an open process with numerous public hearings about whether the historic preference for a "diversity of voices" should be abandoned in favor of a "few well-heeled voices," the public outcry would have been enormous.

Look, my grandfather worked at the mill, rented his house from the mill, bought most of the family provisions from the mill store--a big portion of the paycheck went directly to the "company store." Here, in America. We're only a generation or two (depending on how old you are) removed from monopoly.

Read Joe Stiglitz' new book, "Freefall." Or review your own radio career. Jeez.

 

[Fran]

Yeah, it was a "heist."

You got it.

The consolidators showed up in D.C. with the NAB on their arm holding a big bag of cash, Then they manufactured a “story” that there was a big “need” for consolidation, — so radio could compete against the newspapers (which today seems a bit humorous). Those with a stake in securing those precious FM signals threw in a lot of underperforming AM stations stats and spun it all into “RADIO.” If this had just been consolidation for AMs, no one would have stepped up to invest a dime. Their objective was to acquire those precious FM signals. This time it truly was “mission accomplished.”

The consolidators got everything they wanted. Wall Street brokers received their huge commissions, the heads of the consolidated stations made millions by the truckload by selling their $75 a share stock. Their only disappointment is that they eventually drove stock prices into the ground. Thus, the value of their stations tumbled along with their hopes for a super-sized end of the game financial cherry. But even now, with stocks selling for pennies, and bankruptcy papers littering the desks of the consolidators, their multi-million dollar paychecks and lucrative severance agreements roll on.

As far as hijackings go. . . . this one will be hard to beat.

 

[TheBigA]

And what little chatter there was in the general press (Big A's reference to Gore on Letterman?) was about the telephone industry. It was a cell phone bill.

Put it in context with what was going on in broadcasting at the time. The FCC had already loosened up the ownership limits twice, and was going to do it again. This Act simplified that procedure for the FCC. There were lengthy hearings in both the Senate and the House on the radio ownership aspects of the bill. This absolutely was NOT done in the dark. I remember reading a lot about it in the trades. Big owners like Sillerman and Karmazin were talking about it a lot. I clearly remember the discussions about requiring owners to buy AMs along with the FMs. It’s possible if you’re in the boonies, you didn’t know. But if you were reading the trades every week (I was in a major market and had a subscription to Broadcasting at the time), it certainly wasn’t a secret.

Like many other aspects of political life, whether one favors consolidation or not depands largely on one's preference for oligopoly--rule by a few (or its first cousin, monopoly)--or a more participatory society.

In my experience, radio has always benefited from various synergies, whether it was with electronics manufacturers or newspapers owning radio stations. As I said yesterday, the decision that made the 96 Act inevitable was the cross-ownership ban, which eliminated newspaper ownership of broadcasting. Had that continued, ownership consolidation would not have happened. I recently read the fascinating book, “Air Castle of the South,” which told the story of WSM. The story there was an insurance company owned an AM station, which became the centerpiece of an AM-FM-TV-cable operation, that also owned a hotel, theme park, and the Grand Ole Opry. There is no radio-only company that has that kind of concentration today. And that’s what the 96 Act was about: radio-only companies, rather than radio as part of some other business.

I'll take the view that the greater number of participants in an industry like radio--a "content" driven biz--the better. But there are a significant number of Americans who sincerely believe that it is better to allow the richest and most powerful people to own as much as they can afford or wish to buy, including media.

The Constitution shows no prejudice against rich or powerful. Unless they use their power or money for crime, it’s OK. Bill Paley was a rich and powerful man before he bought CBS in 1928. Same with all of the original founders of broadcasting. What was OK then should be OK now. If you study the history of broadcasting, it was all about rich and powerful people. If they weren't rich and powerful when they started, they became rich quickly, especially if they owned the most powerful radio station in a small town. Someone has to PAY for that content. Mom & pop, in my experience, never had the money to create content. That’s why the small stations always carried networks and syndication.

Yeah, it was a "heist." And if it had not been conducted as a "stealth" job by NAB insiders (yeah, some palms were certainly greased), the radio industry of the time--the thousands of small companies constituting the industry--would never have allowed it to happen.

Are you kidding? Those small companies were the chief beneficiaries of the Act. Their owners cashed out and have lived the rest of their lives with riches and splendor. Even Jerry Del Colliano was able to leave with more money than he’d ever have made if he stayed in Cherry Hill. None of them are interested in getting back into the trenches now.

 

[gr8oldies]

1975 in my market, 4 companies owned all the viable AM and FM signals. It's three now but a far cry from one. Audiences don't give a crap whether its company A or company B playing classic rock.

 

[TheBigA]

The consolidators showed up in D.C. with the NAB on their arm holding a big bag of cash, Then they manufactured a “story” that there was a big “need” for consolidation, — so radio could compete against the newspapers (which today seems a bit humorous).

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The real "consolidators," folks like the Bass Brothers and KKR, cashed out and were gone by 1992. It all makes for great fiction, the kind of conspiracy stuff bloggers live for, but none of it was true. Anyone who was in the middle of the action at the time, in a major market (where I was), will tell you it wasn't true.

As far as hijackings go. . . . this one will be hard to beat.

It’s hard to call something a heist or hijacking when thousands of small owners willingly became a part of it. They were thrilled to sell their stations, glad to take the money, and most have not returned. And they could easily buy back their former stations and keep most of their money. But they’re happy to be out.
No one put a gun to anyone's head. No eminant domain. No forceful evictions. Some guys like John Kluge were thrilled to be bought out. John took his radio money and turned it into a cell phone empire. That's where the real money was. Not radio.

 

[TheBigA]

But, frankly, if there had instead been an open process with numerous public hearings about whether the historic preference for a "diversity of voices" should be abandoned in favor of a "few well-heeled voices," the public outcry would have been enormous.

It WAS an open process, discussed on the floor of the Senate and House, in full view of TV cameras, reported in the trades. This country doesn't have a "historic preference" for "diversity of voices." That's a bunch of fiction. Before the 80s, we had 3 TV networks. That was it. Now we have hundreds. This is not some economic battle. Clear Channel or any of the radio companies never used their radio stations for political influence. They just play the hits. The real political power isn't in the radio companies, but in the bodies of specific air talent like Rush or Glenn Beck. Those are the people to be worried about. The companies they work for have no political agenda. 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.

 

[Fran]

[It’s hard to call something a heist or hijacking when thousands of small owners willingly became a part of it.

They did. . .after the fact.

I am writing this in Crayola easy to understand words. . . just read this very s l o w l y.

At the ’95 NAB convention, in a really big room, where the head FCC commissioner was addressing a standing room only crowd of radio owners, programmers and the like, the commissioner was asked about consolidation. He could have said, “golly gee, that bill was passed last June,” or he could have said, “here are the details…” Instead he was very vague (meaning. . . ambiguous, unclear).

True, after the bill was formally passed, then the owners had a choice. Sell to the consolidators at a great price, often 10X (or more) and go and retire in Naples and play golf all day, OR, be a buyer (because you’ll need another three stations to compete us), and, ohhh, by-the-way, if you want to be a buyer, just know you’ll be competing against us Wall Street consolidators on the purchase price. Thus, selling became (for most) the only option.

Got it. . . yet?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

You are being an example of why many of us are scared of the current state of radio. The current state of radio has you convinced that gay marriage is something people don't want to hear about on radio.

We don't know what THE PEOPLE think. We know what some of the assertive people are saying they want and don't want.

You are likely next to point me to some states where the people have voted on this subject and they have voted that they don't want gay marriage. But since there is no diversity of voices most people have never heard the opposing side. They assume there is no opposing side. I'm not sure they know they can vote the other way if they want to and still live to tell about it.

There is no diversity of voices about taxes. The broadcasting companies have set up a paradigm where the T-baggers can clog up the communications funnels and Joe and Molly Sixpack assume there is no valid reason to have ANY taxes much less increase taxes. I live in a state where are in the bottom three or four states in spending on highways and roads. No politician in his right mind would campaign on solving our third worst in the nation commute congestion. Radio as we know it would skin him alive and nail his hide to the wall as a warning to other such rebel thinkers.

I'm a reasonably gregarious fellow. I think my posts would reveal that. As you can imagine, where ever I go to shop, to eat out, to worship I have conversations would people. I hear what they are saying about taxes and roads. I hear what they are saying about sexuality of all kinds in our civilization. I hear what they are saying about political personalities.

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

 

[TheBigA]

Got it. . . yet?

How does any of what you say change the fact that the entire bill, including the parts about ownership, was discussed on the floor, in the open, during the daytime, in full view of cameras and the trade press? It's not up to an FCC Commissioner to announce or discuss pending legislation that he will have to carry out. That is for one of the bill sponsors to discuss. So if a Commissioner was vague, that has nothing to do with anything. A regulator should not discuss pending legislation unless asked during Congressional hearings.

Anyone who was in that room could have seen the mock-ups of the bill, which was available at the time through the sponsoring legislators. If *I* was able to see it, then anyone could have done it. And one didn't need to have a bucket of cash to get a copy of the bill.

Thus, selling became (for most) the only option.

Someone has really sold you a bill of goods. Believe whatever you want to believe. It's obvious you have a personal bias here. But I know a lot of owners who've had their stations for more than 25 years. They didn't get any threats. If you wanted to be a BIG player in a BIG market, it would cost money. But for the majority of owners, the new law didn't change a thing.

 

[TheBigA]

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. It's been my experience, as one who's done a lot of man-on-the-street interviews with people (those who are willing to stop and talk), that there really isn't a diversity of voices. Just a lot of voices, mainly saying the same thing.

 

[Fran]

It's not up to an FCC Commissioner to announce or discuss pending legislation that he will have to carry out. That is for one of the bill sponsors to discuss.

That is so stupid it’s hard not to laugh. Yeah, I guess the FCC commission could have said to a packed hall of radio people and owners, as you put it. . . ". . . It's not up to me, The FCC Commissioner to announce or discuss pending legislation that I will have to carry out. That would certainly been a real crowd pleaser. Geeze.

Since you, with the big [mysterious] market background of whatever, are somehow compelled to respond to posts, let me give you a break. . . if you ever get the urge to respond to any thing I post, grab a hold of yourself and repeat. . . ". . . back way from the keyboard… back away from. . . . "