Less stations, better business?

[davideduardo]

Re: Fewer Stations? Monkey Business?

If a station isn't economically viable, it should turn in the license. If real estate, NIMBYs, or other factors make it impossible to operate in the COL, turn in the license.

I have heard of a case of a station evicted due to eminent domain (a superfund site or restoration of wetlands would work, too) which wanted to stay in business but found that FAA, EPA, local zoning, etc., would take several years. They prevailed and the station came back on. There can be no rule so blanket as to simply revoke licenses whent there are mitigating circumstances.

That doesn't mean that there will be less radio service. Radio is an elastic medium. If a station shuts down in one locale, it opens up the frequency for another COL, or allows another station to increase coverage by expanding their signal through a power increase and/or directional antenna.

With the newer protection requirements, this is usually not true for AMs in night service.

It would be interesting to see who'll benefit by having WTFX go silent on 610. It wouldn't surprise me if Clear Channel has a station on 610 that might be able to expand coverage in another area.

From what I can tell, the station protected everyone but nobody protected it. Chances are that nobody can make any kind of move, except maybe a daytimer in the same area with, probably, lower power.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Fewer Stations? Monkey Business?

If a station isn't economically viable, it should turn in the license. If real estate, NIMBYs, or other factors make it impossible to operate in the COL, turn in the license.

I have heard of a case of a station evicted due to eminent domain (a superfund site or restoration of wetlands would work, too) which wanted to stay in business but found that FAA, EPA, local zoning, etc., would take several years. They prevailed and the station came back on. There can be no rule so blanket as to simply revoke licenses whent there are mitigating circumstances.

Did anybody say anything about revocation? Surrendering a license is not the same as the FCC revoking it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: Fewer Stations? Monkey Business?

Did anybody say anything about revocation? Surrendering a license is not the same as the FCC revoking it.

David is more than capable to defend his message, but may I point out I think you are misquoting him. He wasn't talking about the FCC revoking the license.

He seemed to be describing the possibility that a zoning commission might be put in the position of "revoking" a license by refusing to grant a station zoning that would permit the station to relocate. Or a highway department might "revoke" a license by taking the land by eminent domain and responding with shrugged shoulders and a "Not my problem" when the broadcaster pleads his case that FCC rules will not accomodate a viable move.

In these rowdy economic conditions we are going to see what amounts to some licenses revoked by bankers.

Tornado season will soon be upon us. Some broadcasters who have squeezed along for years making the best of a market too thin will come to work some morning after a stormy night and find their tower laying in the field, bent and mangled. The station obituary will read: "License finally revoked by Mother Nature."

There are more players in this drama than just the broadcaster and the FCC.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Interesting interpretation, but I don't believe that I was misquoting David. AFAIK, ONLY the FCC can revoke a broadcast license. I'm sure that David is well aware of that.

There may be other factors that make a license economically unviable, but that doesn't equal "revocation".

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Fewer Stations? Monkey Business?

say anything about revocation? Surrendering a license is not the same as the FCC revoking it.

Sorry. I thought that by "surrender" you meant that after a certain time, a licensee would have to turn in an inactive license. Otherwise, why would one give up something with potential value if the distress conditions were finally overcome?

It's sort of like having mineral rights on a sandbar. At some point, sand might be in short supply, so you don't just give up the rights... in fact, you would only do so were the pertinent authorities to require it if nothing is done on the location for a certain period of time.

"Surrender and come out with your hands up" represents the authorities putting pressure on... otherwise, why would anyone surrender?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Time to Surrender

My "surrender" referenced amfmxm's post:

A couple weeks ago Clear Channel pulled the plug on a perfectly good little AM facility in Winchester, VA. The land it was sitting on became (much) more valuable than the station. Didn't even try to shop the license--just sent it back to DC and turned off the lights.

If more companies would do that with unwanted or unviable properties, it would help resolve a long-standing issue with frequency allocations being out of whack with population shifts that have occurred over the last 60 years. In this case, Clear Channel apparently made more by selling off the land than they could have hoped to make with the signal.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Time to Surrender

If more companies would do that with unwanted or unviable properties

I think a lot of companies and owners are doing that right now. I expect that CC will be doing that in Seattle, where they just traded some stations with CBS. But the stations they'll be closing will be low power AM properties, and I don't expect a lot of people rushing in to replace them on those frequencies. There is a reason why some of stations are in trouble, and it has to do with supply and demand. Too many stations, too few listeners. One day the FCC will wake up and realize it has about 3000 frequencies in its inventory, and no one interested in using them. If they become aware of this, they might suggest LPFM applicants use them. I think a day will come (and it may be very soon) when the entire AM band will be better utilized for smaller, more directed community stations, instead of trying to cram LPFM stations into an already over-crowded FM band.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Shrinkage

I think that there are corporations that are salivating at the idea of killing off the AM band - or a large portion of it - and reallocating that bandwidth to digital transmission, which could be two-way. Perhaps the lower end of the band would be preserved for a much smaller number of stations serving large areas. If the FCC was smart, they'd bump the bandwidth back UP, kill the IBOC monster, and go back to stereo AM with enough bandwidth to make it sound decent.

Of course, you'd have to figure out how to compensate all of those owners who would lose broadcast licenses in the process, and decide which stations would survive in the reduced-station scenario. Somehow, I don't see the political will to make that kind of change. TV got away with it mostly because cable and satellite penetration is so high for most of the country. The number of people recieving TV OTA has dropped off drastically in the last 20 years.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Shrinkage

Of course, you'd have to figure out how to compensate all of those owners who would lose broadcast licenses in the process, and decide which stations would survive in the reduced-station scenario.

I think the marketplace will take care of that...perhaps sooner than you think

 

[adma]

And remember re the successful AMs: all you have to do is transfer them to FM, and there are presumably enough sickly/lame-duck FM music outlets out there to be sacrificed on behalf of AM migrants...

 

[johnbasalla]

A couple of additional points.
1. I agree with the idea of revisiting AM stereo. The FCC should pick a standard and stick with it. Can 't have competing systems that are incompatible with eachother, AM stereo opens the door for more programming options on AM.

2. Sometimes groups who want an over-the-air radio station don't have one because they don't have the resources to support it. In Northern Ohio there is a group who have had a construction permit to build a station on 88.3 FM since the mid-late 1990s and haven't done so. They just keep renewing the permit. My guess is lack of resources because they don't even have a web presence of any kind that I can find. All they've accomplished is stopping another station on 88.3 FM from raising its power and changing its pattern in order to point the signal towards the main population base.
My point here is that, while I think it's a good idea to use some AM facilities for specialized/localized programming, will the people/groups who want to provide those services be able to afford to do it, even if getting the station for next to nothing?

 

[TheBigA]

will the people/groups who want to provide those services be able to afford to do it, even if getting the station for next to nothing?

That's the point that media critics don't understand. The costs in running a radio station, even if you assume volunteer talent, are huge. Start with the legal and engineering costs. There is a lot of FCC paperwork to complete. Add the operational costs (electric, rent, heat, etc). Facilities costs (studios, transmitter, tower, etc). Necessary services (accounting, repair, etc). Those basic costs add up. One non-profit I know was a half million in debt in their first year, and they got their license donated for free.

The airwaves may belong to the public, but those who pay the bills for the operation know there more to running a radio station than the license. This is another reason why most start-ups are pursuing other ways of communication (internet, part 15, etc).

 

[johnbasalla]

Good points "BigA". Maybe the FCC has surrepitiously acquiesced to this realty vi-a-vis non-commercial radio stations. The fund raising spots have gotten closer and closer to sounding like out right commercials.
You can't run a radio station on desire and philosophy alone.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Those basic costs add up. One non-profit I know was a half million in debt in their first year, and they got their license donated for free.

My favorite example of preface a conversation with someone about the possibility of small market, micromarket, low-investment radio is the automobile. Starting after World War II there was an amazing movement to build radio stations in smaller and smaller communities. Here is where automobiles come in. Remember the early ventures into building small cars, ala Detroit. The Chevette. The Ford Falcon. Just build what we always have, only smaller. Then Volkswagen began riding high, and Chevrolet tried the rear-engine Corvair. Finally the engineers slapped their forehead and said: "For a small car, The engine has to be at the same end of the car as the drive wheels, and the engine needs to be UP FRONT." How many of you today are driving a front wheel drive car.

Low investment, low budget radio requires the same kind of mental break-through. Just as Detroit (and Japan!) had to forget that cars ALWAYS have the engine up front and the drive wheels in back, what does radio need to learn?

I'm sure a number of people who obtained an NCE construction permit only knew to do what they had seen at commercial radio stations through the years and the NPR affiliated stations they admired. And after they were committed to all the traditional infrastructure, both in capital construction, and in operating space and methods, did they realize, "Financially, this thing won't fly!"

Earlier this year I began sizing up the LPFM situation. Track them down if you plan to get involved in one. Some of them have broken some cost barriers, both in construction AND in operations. Some of them have "barn raising" events to get started.

I can hear the station breaks of the future now: "Hi, folks. You are listening to the hybrid car of radio stations."

Wouldn't it be an interesting world if the "dreamers" of the LPFM world developed trends that would later be adopted by commercial stations in order to survive.

 

[FredRichards]

I've been waiting to see some enterprising LPFM station run the whole operation from wind or solar energy and brag to their community the fact that they don't take anything off the grid for their service.

In some areas of the nation this would be impressive to the listeners. In others it would be ho-hum.

I've always put broadcasters in the same beaker for judgment as I do retail. Big equates to might, leverage, and slick image. But it doesn't always offer service. I always shop at my hometown hardware because of the service. Lowes has better prices but you don't get any help, and you don't know the quality of the product you're going to end up with. Sort of like radio today.

 

[Radknowski]

I've always put broadcasters in the same beaker for judgment as I do retail. Big equates to might, leverage, and slick image. But it doesn't always offer service. I always shop at my hometown hardware because of the service. Lowes has better prices but you don't get any help, and you don't know the quality of the product you're going to end up with. Sort of like radio today.

Seems "big," even if it's "quality big," is having trouble in the marketplace. When Toyota reports a loss, there's a strong indicator that trouble is brewin'. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise when radio companies that bought into the concept of "big" are scrambling to downsize or sell off assets. Where the buyers and credit are going to come from is beyond me. I expect it will get worse before it gets better.

Toyota Motor Corp. projected its first-ever operating loss, acknowledging that its nine-year stretch of global vehicle-sales growth had stalled. Crashing auto demand, especially in its key U.S. market, proved too much for Japan's top automaker, which had been reporting huge sales numbers from its fuel-efficient models, including the Camry sedan and Prius gas-electric hybrid.

 

[Chuck]

I've been waiting to see some enterprising LPFM station run the whole operation from wind or solar energy and brag to their community the fact that they don't take anything off the grid for their service.

I've thought about doing just that. As it works out, our local Electric Cooperative is an underwriter of the station. Their monthly cash contribution is more or less equal to our energy consumption cost. Although it would be nice to be "green," it is hard to find a lot of the incentive to spend $25,000 to $50,000 to replace their underwriting.