Is this the start of the pendulum swinging back?

[Mark_Giardina]

From Radio&Records.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005, which, among other things, aims to restore a limit on how many radio stations a company can own nationwide and reduce the number of stations any one company could own in one market.

Along with restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, the bill would also require broadcasters to prepare reports detailing their public interest efforts.

Commenting on the bill, which was co-sponsored by Rep. Diane Watson, Hinchey said, "The Media Ownership Reform Act tackles the issue of media consolidation head-on and implements new standards for a diverse media that will ensure Americans have access to a wide array of ideas and information. It is clear that Americans want a diverse media that is responsive to local communities. Unfortunately, the consolidation of the media has created a system that is less diverse and less responsive to local needs."

Hinchey added, "It is imperative that Congress take action to fix this broken media system."
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[Bob1370]

> From Radio&Records.
>
> Rep. Maurice Hinchey introduced the Media Ownership Reform
> Act of 2005, which, among other things, aims to restore a
> limit on how many radio stations a company can own
> nationwide and reduce the number of stations any one company
> could own in one market.
>
> Along with restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, the bill
> would also require broadcasters to prepare reports detailing
> their public interest efforts.

We will not see this enacted until 2009. By that time, the natural cycle of politics will mean a change in partisan control of Congress (which may begin at least in one house as early as January 2007) and the White House as well.

Once you DO see the institutions of government change hands, you will see re-regulation. It will come partly in response to the way news/talk broadcasting has been turned into a largely partisan format, and partly in response to the abuses of concentration which have led to the deterioration of service to the public. Broadcast managers will complain bitterly as they are forced to restore local content and public service components in their programming, and put their seocndary properties on the block (perhaps having to sell them at a discount into what will be a buyer's market). Some marginal stations within large area clusters may even end up going dark if they can't find a buyer, reducing the clutter on the bands.

Though they complain, the managers who created this world---and engendered the coming regulatory backlash---will have no one to blame but themselves. Ironically, what they will be forced to do will make the business not only more diverse, but overall a lot healthier for everyone, even for them.

 

[60sguy]

> Though they complain, the managers who created this
> world---and engendered the coming regulatory backlash---will
> have no one to blame but themselves. Ironically, what they
> will be forced to do will make the business not only more
> diverse, but overall a lot healthier for everyone, even for
> them.

Bob,

Along those lines, this post attributed to Bill Figenshu, ex-corporate guy and new consultant, that appeared in "net talk" on allaccess.com today... (sorry for the length, but it's a great read)

Reality Becoming Perception
I believe radio company CEO's and other assorted company leaders are really
smart, hard working, well intentioned individuals. They are under constant
pressure to perform. They can't work any harder. It's time for them/us to
work a little smarter.

I believe we are now in for the battle of our career. Part of it is a
perception battle, the other part is real. With all the press on satellite
radio, I-Pods, broadband, and the general state of changing technology, you
would think these technology changes have rendered commercial radio
obsolete. Satellite radio is getting so much positive press, you would think
they have more listeners than we do! (hint, they don't, not by a long shot.)
This is the perception. Do you think listeners believe satellite radio has
more listeners than they have? I do!

Corporate radio is getting so much negative press, I believe it is starting
to sink into the public psyche.

We are making a few MAJOR mistakes. And here is where the reality comes in.
We are all being made out to be the greedy Gordon Gecko's of the media
business. Good solid everyday radio broadcasters are now being painted (by
Wall Street, the press, and in some cases, OURSELVES!) with the same brush.

And our competition is LOVING it! We are acting like the stupid competitor
across the street that is making it WORSE every time they try to make it
better. In short, we are playing defense - not offense. We suck at defense.
And our offense is weak.

Over the air radio has a bright future! No kidding, it really does. But we
better start making the changes necessary to operate in the future, or we
will struggle for years to come.

There are exceptions, but.....(here I speak in generalities. Not EVERY
station, cluster & company is like this. It just seems like it!)

It's difficult to buy national spot radio. And expensive. National rep
firms are still doing business the same way they did 10-15 years ago. Except
we are paying them HALF. No wonder they are not investing in resources.
National spot radio will continue to shrink if we don't streamline the
paper, and ease of buying. It can be done. but we are going to have to spend
money to fix it. Many national people are overworked with the amount of
paper piled on by handling way too many stations. Some can handle it. Many
cannot. They have been through so many cuts, they are scared to say anything
about it. Many are dismayed at what the business has become. They are
overworked, and beat up. I'll bet 50% of the national sellers would
re-locate to another career if they could. This business needs a complete
re-think. If we don't, someone else will. (yes, I have specific solutions.
If you want to know them, call me.)

We must address the 18-34 issue RIGHT NOW! We are not attracting young
listeners to radio. There is little for them here. We have cut research,
marketing, and a conduit into the minds of these people. Quick! (with the
exception of ethnic formats) Name ONE new successful format developed for
young people in the USA. (don't say Jack, it came from Canada. and it's not
18-34.) There is little if any R&D going on in the corporate halls of radio.
(especially the research part.) There is little talent development for this
demographic. Where are the next generation of morning show's, talk hosts,
and yes, dare I say, DJ's? We have cut out the incubator. No overnight,
weekend, 7p to midnight shows are being developed because we have NO LIVE
PEOPLE ON THE AIR. I'll bet (with a few exceptions) there are no more than 2
live people on the air in major markets on Saturday night. None in smaller
markets. And the pay is just above the 3d shift at Burger King. Many PD's
know this. GM's do too! Some can handle it. Many cannot. They have been
through so many cuts, they are scared to say anything about it. Many are
dismayed at what the business has become. They are overworked, and beat up.
I'll bet 50% of the GM's & PD's (given the choice) would re-locate to
another career if they could.

Speaking of 18-34, we are NOT educating our young managers. GM's, PD's &
Sales Managers are NOT being trained in the skills necessary to compete in
the new media world. We have cut research, sales training, music testing,
and GM development. First time managers are being given 2-3-5 even 8
stations to run. Are they Qualified? Trained? No. They are buried in paper.
(part of the blame is Sarbanes-Oxley) GM's, PD's & GSM's are spending their
day running from meeting to meeting, trying to administrate the massive
amount of accountability required of them from corporate. They have no
"thinking" time. Remember, this is a creative business. It's NOT Wall Mart.

Today';s managers are being told what to do from above. They are NOT being
trained to think for themselves. They are simply managing the expenses and
pushing for every dollar they can find. We are paying managers less money
for more responsibility. 10 years ago, in most major cities there were 1 or
2 station managers (PD's GM's & GSM's) per station. Now there are 1 or 2
managers per 3 to 8 stations. Some can handle it. Many cannot. They have
been through so many cuts, they are scared to say anything about it. Many
are dismayed at what the business has become. They are overworked, and beat
up. I'll bet 50% of the big company GM's (given the choice) would re-locate
to another career if they could.

Today's Regional managers are also overworked. Charged with "getting the
money" they must coax every dollar out of every station. They don't have
time to address the subtleties of each individual station or situation. Just
"bottom line me". They are getting 150 to 200+ e-mails per day. They are the
gatekeepers of the expenses. They live in airports going from conference
room to conference room. What would be the average time spent per station
issue in a given week? Hmmm, lets see, 80 stations times 40 hours per week =
30 minutes per station. Add in corporate responsibility at 3 hours per day =
55 hours per week. Stir in a dash of legal, HR & travel and bada bing! You
got one busy person. With too many calls to return and not enough day to do
it. Some can handle it. Many cannot. They have been through so many cuts,
they are scared to say anything about it. Many are dismayed at what the
business has become. They are overworked, and beat up. They want to do the
right things for the station. They know what to do. They are very smart.
They don't have the money to give the GM's to support the product. They know
not to ask upstairs. The answer is mostly "no". They stop asking.

Now to the CEO/President job. Radio leaders must re-think what they are
doing. It's not working.

Wall Street is leaving. No use sucking up to them. The stock options are
under water anyway. We can't please them anymore. We have to get the growth
back to get them back. We can't cut our way to growth anymore. We must
invest in these clusters right away. They (Wall Street) won't like that.
But, we have no choice.

There are too many layers between CEO's, the listeners, advertisers and
everyday employees. The CEO's are not going down to the front. They are NOT
approachable. they are too busy defending their actions. Many are hard
working, well intentioned professionals. But the world is changing. And they
are not listening to the listeners. They fail to see the personal
relationship between the audience and the station. "Less is more" is fine,
BUT WHO GAVE THEM MORE (spots) and LESS (music) in the first place? We did.
We were wrong. We screwed up.

Leaders are NOT listening to their own GM's, Regional & department heads.
They don't want to hear it. "No excuses, just get the money" they cry! If
you tell Wall Street the radio stations are going to grow 4%, and the
budget for the stations is 12% (BCF) while the local market advertising
growth rate is +1%, there is eventually going to be a problem.
(hint, some stations are going to get a new competitor, they won't grow no
matter what you say. If there is no money to defend your attack, you may
lose the brand forever. CEO's know this. They are not stupid. They just
can't afford to defend every attack. They must pick the battles. but they
need local input to make the decisions. They are not always getting it. Or
don't want to hear it. )

Each station should have a soul if it is to succeed. Each must strike a
chord with listeners, advertisers, & employees. We can't keep assuming that
whatever we do, the "people" out there will like it. Just because we want
the stations to bill a certain amount, it doesn't mean it will. Advertisers
are getting picky. They now have choices. And the new marketplace will
dictate the results. Not us, try as we may.

I am not suggesting we throw money at every problem. Clearly, there are
reasons NOT to spend money on inferior products, bad employees, or
lackluster marketing. I am suggesting that Station Managers, Regional VP's,
and people in the corporate office must re-think the way we are doing
commercial radio in 2005/2006.

We must start putting money back into many of these great brands, and the
people who make them work. .

We must realize the limits of local staff vs. work load. If the FCC would
let us own 20 stations in a market, would we have the head count per station
that we have now?

Me must put many decisions back into the local community. We must trust our
local managers to do it right. (or get rid of them)

We must market our local content to a public that believes we are in some
ways inferior. (perception here too.) This means spend money on well
programmed brands.

Many CEO's and company Presidents, Regionals, & GM's are doing things RIGHT
everyday! They are just NOT getting the credit for it. Perhaps it's time for
a dialogue. It's time to play offense. It's time to address the cost,
talent, future, and competitive issues in a frank, logical, and even cost
effective way. Are we doing it now? If so, it's not working. We aren't
landing any punches. We are running for election. And the words are NOT
resonating with the voters. The competition's message is! (for the most
part).

Are many of our stations sounding good? You bet your ass they are! I would
put many of them up against any satellite, I-Podcast, Internet, future
whatever, any day of the week.

But,

Our share of market is down, our TSL is down, our 18-34 is down, our cash
flow is down, our morale is down, our stock price is down, our rates are
down, our national is down, our confidence is down, our "will to win" is
down, the audience perception of us is down, the press is down on us, our
expenses are down, but our revenue is down too!. (yes, I know there are
exceptions.) So, let's just be honest with ourselves. At least it's a start.

Fig (Bill Figenshu)
www.figmedia1.com

 

[Element9]

Re: The Pendulum and Figenshu

Figenshu makes so many good points in his epistle to radio folks. Other industries and businesses have learned (in some cases, the hard way) that success is often derived FROM THE BOTTOM UP.

Fig is a seasoned vet, a very bright guy who knows sales and programming. For the uninitiated, he came up through the ranks of programming. Programming a successful COUNTRY station in Washington, D.C. His new consulting firm will be interesting to watch, especially as it grows and we see what stations sign with him.

Much as I agree with most of his screed, he ain't sayin' anything that anybody who's been in the business for any length of time doesn't already know or hasn't already learned the HARD way. But it's good to hear and read a guy like HIM say it, mostly because what he says is TRUE.

 

[Doyle]

Re: Hinchey's law will never pass.

Bob,

Where did you work that there was this HUGE commitment to public service you lament the loss of. I started in radio in 1978 and there has been no real reduction in the public service efforts of commercial broadcasters.

Sure, WHAM's newsroom is smaller, but they have all talk compared with Barry Manilow and news in the 70's. Is their format serving the public less because they don't play Barry Manilow, but have lonsberry and Rush?

I think not.

Partisan talk is bad? Why, because it's not fair and balanced? Who gets to decide what fair and balanced is?

Today, local radio serves the public in many different ways. At Entercom, we helped the Ronald McDonald House, the Red Cross, The American Heart Association, The Wilmot Cancer Center, and The Salvation Army raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past 12 months. We use our airways to "celebrate Rochester" and to make people aware of the great work of thes charitable organizations.

Public Service comes in many different forms, not just NewsBlocks in the morning.


No, we don't have a staff of 20 gathering news. Believe it or not, all people don't want that much local news. And, they have other choices. 5 local televisions stations ( or is it 6 pr 7), R News on Cable, Public Radio, the Democrat and Chronicle...oh...and that Internet thing. I think that might catch on.

It serves no purpose to wish for a world of radio programming that no one will listen to (like middays on WXXI AM). Sure it's local, but apparently no one cars. Al Franken has more listeners with a lousy signal than WXXI AM in his timeslot. But you keep saying that "local is better."

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it.....

And the courts will never allow a law to stand that reduces the current ownership caps on radio. And by the way, who was in the Oval Office in 96? Why do you think a change in party in power will make a difference?

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Pit and the Pendulum

Those of you who read the "Coast to Coast" board may have already read the post below. This is for those who haven't...

I think that a far more likely scenario for radio is that the broadcast bands will be forced into the digital age, and the number of broadcast streams available will increase exponentially. Even acceptance of the flawed IBOC system allows for multiple information streams on what is now a single channel.

New technologies are on the horizon that can provide high-speed Internet access over a wide area, providing mobile access to all sorts of data streams. Radio station owners will adapt by becoming Internet content providers. They are positioned to translate their existing content to a new media seamlessly because they already have the advertising and audiences bases intact.

The FCC understands that the current broadcast model is ineffecient in the digital world. Expect changes that will help increase that efficiency.

We have the problem of how to compensate the current owners of broadcast channels whose value will be reduced by the proliferation of new data streams. The owners, banks, shareholders, and lobbyists will be apply maximum pressure to protect or enhance their investment. Look for them to expand their service offerings beyond the scope of current broadcasting, and for them to cut a sweetheart deal for the cost of playing copyrighted music.

The Fairness Doctrine will become moot. Anybody who wants to get up on their digital soapbox will be able to. Heck, podcasting affords that opportunity right now. Expect some kind of regulation to tag objectionable content so it can be blocked by parents and people who prefer not to sample that type of content.

We will see greater competition for listeners. The cost of providing content will be significantly less than the cost of owning a radio station. Disenfranchised broadcasters and frustrated listeners will have low-cost opportunities to try out new formats. Some will succeed. Some will fail. The marketplace will determine the outcome.

By 2009, reducing the number of radio stations owned by a particular broadcast company may be insignificant. The Fairness Doctrine is already insignificant. I think that this legislation is a "feel good" bill intended to afford a ray of hope to a disenfranchised minority, but will never get out of committee.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Hinchey's law will never pass.

Congressman Hinchey’s bill won’t make it past committee hearings because the lobbyists for the big media companies will make sure they will spend what ever it takes to keep things status-quo when it comes to capping the number of broadcasting properties they can own in a market.

Bob: You have to stop blaming the Republicans for every evil thing that happens in the world. Mike Doyle is correct that the 1996 Telecommunications Act was signed into law by a Democratic president named Clinton. It should also be pointed out that a Republican senator by the name of McCain from Arizona has, in the past, made comments critical of deregulation.

Mike: Midday’s on WXXI has always been the lowest-rated time slot during the week long before WROC-AM came into existence and before 950-AM started carrying Air America.
You know as well as anyone that the decision to carry Air America wasn’t because that network had a superior product. It was because Entercom’s attempts to erode WHAM’s conservative audience fell flat on its face, thus the switch to a more liberal talk show format. WROC-AM just happened to luck out that there is an audience out there that enjoys Air America and it appears, from the winter 2005 book at least, that AAR has eroded some of WXXI’s audience. There are other reasons for WXXI’s audience hemorrhage, but I won’t go into that here.

All three of us started out in broadcasting in the early or mid 1970s. And while you two can argue until the cows come home about deregulation, who has the lowest-rated program on radio and other topics, I’ve always maintained my concern about the future of radio.

At the present time 99.9% of the people who are on the air in Rochester in morning drive are veterans who have been in the business and this market for many years. What happens when they leave radio for another career or die? Who is there to replace them? Where do young college graduates go to learn the skills we did at their age? Go ask educators who teach broadcasting and journalism at area colleges how many of their students are interested in a career in radio. They will tell you very few, or next to none.

I just read in Scott Fybush’s web page the other day about how one conglomerate purchased several radio stations in the Southern Tier and has simulcast almost all their stations to sound the same. Then broadcasters wonder why people are turning to I Pods or other forms of entertainment and why there has been a steady decline in the number of people listening to radio and watching television over the past few years.

<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Hinchey's law will never pass.

> And the courts will never allow a law to stand that reduces
> the current ownership caps on radio. And by the way, who was
> in the Oval Office in 96? Why do you think a change in party
> in power will make a difference?

Bill Clinton actually admitted the 1996 Telecom Act was one of his biggest regulatory mistakes. He's said it on the air when asked about it. Like a lot of officials, they get snowed by the lobbying propaganda that broadcasters and cable put out to push their agenda. Everytime lobbyists promise a lighter regulatory approach will lead to more innovation and better investment, it always turns out to be a media merger frenzy. Cable got its rates deregulated and they went on a shopping spree (and raised rates to pay for it). Broadcasters got deregulation and they bought each other out and created mega groups that consist on one or two local stations they focus on, and a smaller group of secondary outlets (especially in adjacent suburbs) that become automated dumping grounds. It never passes the laugh test when I see filings that argue that Honeoye Falls or Palmyra needs that local station to represent those communities when it turns out that stations are automated jukeboxes or satellite programmed with studios in Rochester.

The old school Fairness Doctrine is dead and buried. There is nothing wrong with partisan formats. But allowing for 30 second listener rebuttals without Lonsberry on the dump button wouldn't kill WHAM either.

Listeners are making their choices when it comes to radio stations that don't serve them. It's called XM, Sirius, the compact disc, or the iPod or equivalent. The NAB has no business protesting the former two in any way, considering many local stations are indistinguishable from any XM or Sirius channel except for the legal ID at the top of the hour and the presence of a handful of local PSAs or ads.

 

[Bob1370]

Re: Hinchey's law will never pass.

> Bob,
>
> Where did you work that there was this HUGE commitment to
> public service you lament the loss of. I started in radio
> in 1978 and there has been no real reduction in the public
> service efforts of commercial broadcasters.

Well. let's see...I worked in the Rochester market in 1977-78, and back then, there were radio newsrooms staffed and operating at least 16 hours a day, 7 days a week at WAXC, WBBF, WROC, WHAM, WVOR, WDKX, WXXI-FM and WCMF. (I was WAXC's morning newscaster.) WSAY came on line in 1981. All of them provided not only hourly newscasts but special reports, talk shows and documentaries. But 1981 was the high water mark. Who beyond WHAM, WXXI-AM and WDKX is doing more than morning drive news, or any serious public affairs programming, now?

> Sure, WHAM's newsroom is smaller, but they have all talk
> compared with Barry Manilow and news in the 70's. Is their
> format serving the public less because they don't play Barry
> Manilow, but have lonsberry and Rush?

Actually, since they not only keep off the air, but outright insult, people whose views represent a plurality of party-enrolled voters in the market, yes, it is a diminution of public service. A cardinal rule of public service broadcasting must be, start by not insulting or demeaning your audience. They violate it 24/7.

> Partisan talk is bad? Why, because it's not fair and
> balanced? Who gets to decide what fair and balanced is?

Partisan talk is one thing. Insulting rant that questions the morality and patriotism of all who disagree is another.

> Today, local radio serves the public in many different ways.
> At Entercom, we helped the Ronald McDonald House, the Red
> Cross, The American Heart Association, The Wilmot Cancer
> Center, and The Salvation Army raise hundreds of thousands
> of dollars in the past 12 months. We use our airways to
> "celebrate Rochester" and to make people aware of the great
> work of thes charitable organizations.

All that is laudable. But while it may be necessary, it's not sufficient, and (as noted above) compares poorly with the diversity of news voices and variety of non-duplicative sources we enjoyed 25 years ago.

> Public Service comes in many different forms, not just
> NewsBlocks in the morning.


> No, we don't have a staff of 20 gathering news. Believe it
> or not, all people don't want that much local news.

Maybe not, but those who do have a tough time getting it.

And,
> they have other choices. 5 local televisions stations ( or
> is it 6 pr 7), R News on Cable, Public Radio, the Democrat
> and Chronicle...oh...and that Internet thing. I think that
> might catch on.

If you watch TV or read the paper in your car or at work, then you are not only unusual, you're dangerous.

> It serves no purpose to wish for a world of radio
> programming that no one will listen to (like middays on WXXI
> AM).

There have to be a hell of a lot of no-ones out there.

>Sure it's local, but apparently no one cars. Al
> Franken has more listeners with a lousy signal than WXXI AM
> in his timeslot. But you keep saying that "local is
> better."

Nice try at self-promotion.

> If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it.....

It probably fell on 950 AM.

Hey, I hope you achieve enough success to cut WHAM down to size too, but I'm afraid a signal that constrained is probably at about the limit of what it can do.

> And the courts will never allow a law to stand that reduces
> the current ownership caps on radio. And by the way, who was
> in the Oval Office in 96? Why do you think a change in party
> in power will make a difference?
>
Because Bill Clinton believes signing that bill was the biggest single mistake he made, bigger than Monica. His successor won't make that mistake.

 

[Radknowski]

Re: Hinchey's law will never pass.

>
> Bob: You have to stop blaming the Republicans for every evil
> thing that happens in the world. Mike Doyle is correct that
> the 1996 Telecommunications Act was signed into law by a
> Democratic president named Clinton. It should also be
> pointed out that a Republican senator by the name of McCain
> from Arizona has, in the past, made comments critical of
> deregulation.

<font face="times new roman" size="3" color="330066">
McCain also initiated legislation that resulted in conglomerates "purchasing" the airwaves. The intent of the legislation was noble on face value, but resulted in the exlusion of local commercial broadcasters (such as Bob Savage.) Now, only the wealthy mega-casters can afford to find a seat at the table. It's one reason why 92.1 in Amherst, which could have become a fine local FM, will likely become another carbon copy (talk about an out-dated metaphor) soapbox owned by a religious broadcasting conglomerate.
>
Bob, Mike, Mark: A fine dialogue on broadcasting and I applaud the time and thought put into your posts. Bravo, gentlemen.
>
</font>

 

[raymond_shaw]

Re: Clinton's Signing of Telecommunications Act of '96 - Some More Detail

> was
> > in the Oval Office in 96? Why do you think a change in
> party
> > in power will make a difference?
> >
> Because Bill Clinton believes signing that bill was the
> biggest single mistake he made, bigger than Monica. His
> successor won't make that mistake.
>

As often is the case, a brief factoid statement like "Bill Clinton signed the telecommunications act into law" expanded upon gives a slightly different story. Yes, Clinton signed the law, but in the U.S. we don't have a dictatorship. A bill must be passed in the house and senate, which was then(as today) controlled by the republicans. This bill is another case of people with big bucks ramming through a bill that doesn't serve the public. This is the same reason we drive cars that run on gas, don't have solar powered homes, 45 million people are without health insurance, rich people got big tax cuts plunging us into a record deficit, etc.

Another point, I remember the day the bill was passed, I saw the latest edition of the industry newsletter, Inside Radio. It said that Clinton was opposed to it then, but didn't feel strongly enough against it to risk the embarrassment of seeing his veto overidden by the Republicans, which surely would have happened. He should have vetoed it anyway on principal. Harry Truman vetoed the Taft Hartley Act, calling it a "Slave labor law" knowing that congress override his veto. Clinton should have had similar strength.

But...to think if Bush or Bush the elder were president they would have vetoed the same bill is inacurate thinking. It's like people who blame job losses due to NAFTA on Clinton. Yes, he signed it into law, but every former living U.S. president, including Ronald Reagan, was in favor of NAFTA.

If you want to blame broadcast deregulation on anyone, blame it on the corrupt plutocratic nightmare known as Washington, DC.

 

[JazzEd]

Re: Clinton's Signing of Telecommunications Act of '96 - Some More Detail

>
> As often is the case, a brief factoid statement like "Bill
> Clinton signed the telecommunications act into law" expanded
> upon gives a slightly different story. Yes, Clinton signed
> the law, but in the U.S. we don't have a dictatorship. A
> bill must be passed in the house and senate, which was
> then(as today) controlled by the republicans.

However, only five Senators and 16 Representatives voted against the bill, which makes it a bipartisan deal, which you finally get around to saying at the end.

The tangential comment about solar houses and gasoline powered cars is a bit simplistic. Congress can't pass a law making clouds disappear in northern areas to allow enough sunlight to fall, nor can they repeal the laws of thermodynamics to improve battery efficiency or the BTU content of ethanol. Passing a law doesn't make things economically or technologically possible.

 

[StangBuddy]

This won't happen in our lifetime.

I picked up a newspaper this past weekend that involved several principal writers, a number of reporters and a few editors. These people actually made a commitment, on the front page, to highlight something called "investigative reporting".

This isn't Rush! It ain't "Capitol Gang" or "MSNBC" or any other "Sound Bite" media. THIS was PRINT! And it kicked the Beltways ass! And you know something...these journalists were probably 15-20 years younger than the pricks who go looking for the quote, bite, or any other way in which they can validate there standing, and there paycheck.

If the electronic media can't cover the news than I'm going back to print. Hey it shows up on my doorstep everyday and I gladly pay for it.

 

[TheREALJM1]

Re: Hinchey's law will never pass.

If Hinchey's bill does make it out of the committee don't be too surprised if it passes. Both political parties feel that the media is run by biased big media companies. The conservatives feel the companies are run by liberals and the liberals say the companies are run by conservatives. And I think the average Joe & Jane on the street is taking notice that their local radio station does not have the programing quailty it once had. Most people now know that just a few companies own all the stations and they don't like it.

 

[raymond_shaw]

Re: Clinton's Signing of Telecommunications Act of '96 - Some More Detail

>
> The tangential comment about solar houses and gasoline
> powered cars is a bit simplistic. Congress can't pass a law
> making clouds disappear in northern areas to allow enough
> sunlight to fall, nor can they repeal the laws of
> thermodynamics to improve battery efficiency or the BTU
> content of ethanol. Passing a law doesn't make things
> economically or technologically possible

Bull! I'm not talking about them passing a law. My point was that greedy oil companies who don't give a damn about anything but their own profits. We put a man on the moon in 1969, but still can't come up with alternative energy cars. There were patents in the 60s for electric cars, but big oil only cares about themselves. Big multinational companies have congress in their pocket. Solar houses - simplistic? I think not. You can do it now. There are government grants available - the general public doesn't know about it. You can literally watch your meter go backwards as your local energy company will buy back surplus energy you produce.

I make this point because it's the same with broadcasting. Clear Channel, Entercom, etc - their interests count with big government - the average person - screw 'em. The abuse of power by the fortunate few affects everything - including the media. The average american has little say in government.
.
>

 

[JazzEd]

Re: Clinton's Signing of Telecommunications Act of '96 - Some More Detail

> Bull! I'm not talking about them passing a law. My point
> was that greedy oil companies who don't give a damn about
> anything but their own profits. We put a man on the moon in
> 1969, but still can't come up with alternative energy cars.
> There were patents in the 60s for electric cars, but big
> oil only cares about themselves.

Okay, electric cars ... where does the electricity come from to charge the batteries? When you can answer that one, and then explain to me about efficiencies of electrical generation and transmission, and the obstacles in battery design rather than spitting out unscientific foil-hatted conspiracy theories, then you'll have your answer as to why they aren't on the road.

 

[StangBuddy]

Re: Clinton's Signing of Telecommunications Act of '96 - Some More Detail

> Okay, electric cars ... where does the electricity come from
> to charge the batteries? When you can answer that one, and
> then explain to me about efficiencies of electrical
> generation and transmission, and the obstacles in battery
> design rather than spitting out unscientific foil-hatted
> conspiracy theories, then you'll have your answer as to why
> they aren't on the road.
>

Exactly the reason why our fossil fuel based economy is doomed Jazz. Doomed! It takes more energy to produce such batteries than can ever be replaced. Be it medicines, plastics, fertilizer or I-Pods, they all rely on outdated, fossil fuel technology that, hopefully, some engineering geeks can correct in the future.

My old man got a Masters in Engineering and spent alot of time at GE. Find the solution instead of defending outdated principles. We waste too much energy on a product that is essentially cheaper than bottled water. Oil will be worth ten times what it is today in just 5-7 years. We all know that Ed! Carter knew it in 79 and Reagan blew it in 87. Clinton passed on broadcasting in 96.

We'll see about the pro-business broadcasting regulations in a future debate, probably when some rich Saudi's decide that it's better to secure a broadcast liscense in the U.S. as compared to flying planes into tall buildings. Be it Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, Tokyo Rose or Hanoi Jane, we all know about the effects of media.

See your future Jazz. The GOP is saying let the market figure it out. We're waiting.