My 2 cents on the Ownership Caps...

[exdjted]

I wanted to use this post to explain my views on the Ownership issue, and what I hope to see happen in the next few months.

I am a small market Radio person. I've worked in rated markets. I've done well in rated markets. I have no desire to own a property in a rated market, but, if one became available that was too good to pass up, I'd probably buy it. However, my views on the pros and cons of the current ownership limits are influenced by personal experience.

I hear both sides. I understand that some people are justifiably worried that if the caps are lifted, that iHeart will buy up everything and that's all we'll have to listen to. They would surely go on a buying spree if the caps are lifted, but, in my opinion, unless they're printing money themselves, they have neither the capital nor the want to buy everything. I believe they will buy strategic pieces in the larger markets. I also believe they may very well dominate mid-major markets. However, I also believe they will have to free up capital to buy in the larger markets by selling off smaller, less important markets. With Cumulus' bankruptcy filings today, I think they too would sell off smaller, under-performing markets in order to shore up their positions in larger, more lucrative markets. Same for Audacy, Townsquare and others. Maybe they are sitting on piles of foreign money and can buy everything and keep what they currently have. We'll see.

Where my desire to see the caps abolished comes from small markets. I've seen too many of my friends die with their stations unsold because the only buyer available was the crosstown competitor. I have a deal that can't be completed under the current rules because of an AM contour that covers 2 signals and puts the entire deal over the cap. It costs money to fight it, and my Washington attorney has a meter attached to his cellphone. Ask me how I know. If the caps are lifted, some of these deals will be able to go through tomorrow.

Those of you who complain every time a station goes silent or gets deleted, ask yourself: if the caps didn't exist, could that station have been sold to someone in the market who couldn't buy it because they were at the cap? In a lot of cases, quite possibly. In others, no. It was a bad signal that should be deleted. But, I can tell you that there are plenty of deals that aren't being made because of the caps. I'm tired of getting phone calls where a friend died or was forced into bankruptcy because they couldn't sell their stations because of the cap or coverage, and a willing buyer was available.

Sirius/XM has over 100 channels. How many of you live in a town where every new car dealership is owned by the same group? Ford, Chevy, Toyota. None of them say the same group that owns a competing brand dealership can't also buy and sell their cars. In my town, Sonic, McDonald's and KFC are all owned by the same group. No one says anything to them. Yet, in my situation, if I have a Country, Hot Ac and Classic Rock and am capped out, I can't buy my competitor when they want to sell and add a Classic Hits and news-talk. Not to mention, I can't then keep his employees and let them keep drawing a paycheck. No, if he can't find a willing buyer, he may be forced to shut them down and delete them, and then all of the keyboard warriors will be on here complaining about another station gone forever.

That's what I hope to accomplish by getting rid of the caps. No, I can't keep iHeart from buying more stations. No, I can't control what others program. What I can do, in my own way, is better serve the community I live and work in, and maybe keep a few people employed along the way. And, when I'm dead, my wife can figure out what to do with the havoc I brought into her life. I'll be snug in my urn and won't care unless the cats knock me off the top of the curio cabinet. I may buy 3 signals and delete one anyway, but that's because the best use would be to get rid of it altogether.

Just my opinion. I welcome your rancor and applause. Don't hold back. At least this thread starts with the main point, and I don't have to fit my response in at #314 where no one cares. If you agree or disagree, tell me why. Don't just say. "Ugh. iHeart bad. That all. Mongo speak.". Tell me why the caps being abolished or modified actually affects you, not just because you hate iHeart or Audacy.

 

[TheBigA]

Just my opinion. I welcome your rancor and applause. Don't hold back.

This will surprise you, but I agree. I don't know what the FCC will do here. They keep talking in terms of "public interest" and "serving local markets." That's what you want to do, so hopefully they'll come up with a plan that works. Typically they don't. What we know is the current system doesn't work. Station values are plummeting. There's a big station in NYC that is for sale with no buyers.

The Chairman seems to be teasing some kind of deregulation. The bad news is that every time this has happened, there have been court challenges that have delayed any implementation. That's kind of what I expect this time.

 

[Deleted member 108832]

Because elimination of the cap allows a surname such as Buffett or Rothschild to acquire and control the entirety of our nation's airwaves.

Hey, you were looking for rancor, Ted, so here it comes. You surely saw the dust-up over George Soros' sudden involvement within the medium, by proxy of the Latino Media Network association. Well, buddy, let the caps be eliminated where it's just a complete free-for-all, and the number of licenses currently held by K-Love will become a laughable also-ran.

Pfft..iHeart. Amateur league, Ted.

 

[davideduardo]

Because elimination of the cap allows a surname such as Buffett or Rothschild to acquire and control the entirety of our nation's airwaves.

Actually, none of the largest group operators have a single owner. Even family-controlled Urban One is a public corporation and a huge percentage of the shares are owned by "outsiders" (the family owns share with super-voting-power, though).

Again, over the air radio has become a smaller and smaller source of audio services. One company could own all the stations in the U.S. and still be small compared to the big enterprises that own streaming and podcast and other audio services.

Heck, just one company, SiriusXM had revenue of over $8 billion last year. All radio stations together were around $12 to $14 billion, depending on whose estimates you look at. Spotify, with £4.5 average quarterly billings, has about twice the revenue of all radio. Then the is Apple, Amazon and all the others.

Hey, you were looking for rancor, Ted, so here it comes. You surely saw the dust-up over George Soros' sudden involvement within the medium, by proxy of the Latino Media Network association. Well, buddy, let the caps be eliminated where it's just a complete free-for-all, and the number of license currently held by K-Love will be a laughable also-ran.

The problem is that, even with caps lifted, the vast majority of U.S. stations are not of interest to any of the groups that might survive. First, take the roughly 4,800 AM stations. Nobody wants them.

Then there are thousands of FMs that offer a big owner no benefits. They may be rimshots with low power or limited signals near rated markets or in areas where it is not even worth adding tiny bits of coverage vs. the cost of maintaining the facility.

The big problem is that nobody want's to buy radio stations because OTA radio is in a slow but unstoppable decline. What we will likely see is trading between the larger owners so that they have viable clusters in the markets they choose to remain in.

 

[ted chittenden]

Because elimination of the cap allows a surname such as Buffett or Rothschild to acquire and control the entirety of our nation's airwaves.

Hey, you were looking for rancor, Ted, so here it comes. You surely saw the dust-up over George Soros' sudden involvement within the medium, by proxy of the Latino Media Network association. Well, buddy, let the caps be eliminated where it's just a complete free-for-all, and the number of licenses currently held by K-Love will become a laughable also-ran.

Pfft..iHeart. Amateur league, Ted.

The primary reason for broadcasting caps was because of the limited number of frequencies available on which to broadcast. Unfortunately, while those limits are still there, the audience has chosen to get its news and music from elsewhere.

 

[exdjted]

Because elimination of the cap allows a surname such as Buffett or Rothschild to acquire and control the entirety of our nation's airwaves.

Hey, you were looking for rancor, Ted, so here it comes. You surely saw the dust-up over George Soros' sudden involvement within the medium, by proxy of the Latino Media Network association. Well, buddy, let the caps be eliminated where it's just a complete free-for-all, and the number of licenses currently held by K-Love will become a laughable also-ran.

Pfft..iHeart. Amateur league, Ted.

If Warren Buffett had wanted to control Radio, he'd have done it a long time ago. Same with George Soros. If either cared about dominating Radio, they'd have done it openly. I don't believe in the Boogeyman, no matter what others may say.

I don't know where you're located, but you do know Radio exists outside the Top 100 markets, right? The vast majority of Radio stations in the country are outside the rated markets, so, unless George or Warren decide they want to invest in Portage, MI or Portageville, MO, I'm not worried about one person or group dominating Radio. If they do want to invest in unrated markets, have them call me.

The problem is that, even with caps lifted, the vast majority of U.S. stations are not of interest to any of the groups that might survive. First, take the roughly 4,800 AM stations. Nobody wants them.

Then there are thousands of FMs that offer a big owner no benefits. They may be rimshots with low power or limited signals near rated markets or in areas where it is not even worth adding tiny bits of coverage vs. the cost of maintaining the facility.

The big problem is that nobody want's to buy radio stations because OTA radio is in a slow but unstoppable decline. What we will likely see is trading between the larger owners so that they have viable clusters in the markets they choose to remain in.

Exactly. Nothing is going to stop Radio's decline. Why is iHeart making such a fuss about their app? Because they want listeners to migrate to the app. Nobody will ever reach every listener by buying physical sticks. iHeart, Audacy, K-Love, you name it. K-Love doesn't need a stick in every town. They need a few well-placed ones. They want souls, and they don't have to split their programming over 5 or more signals. K-Love and Air 1 are their offerings. Why would they need 5 FMs in Dallas or Atlanta? They're in Radio today because a lot of their followers don''t use an app. Once the generations who actually used Radio and dial-up telephones die off, Radio will as well. Then, even the big boys will go strictly digital and whittle down their physical inventory.

No, the greater effect of lifting the caps will take place in smaller markets. Besides, in order to buy a signal, even the richest buyer needs a willing seller. So, unless Audacy, Beasley, Hubbard, Bonneville and the others decide to get out of Radio, iHeart ain't buying every signal in every Top 100 market. Neither is anybody else.

​

 

[davideduardo]

The primary reason for broadcasting caps was because of the limited number of frequencies available on which to broadcast.

Actually, the limitations had more to do with congressmen back in the late 20's and earlier 30's being afraid of one company having "too much influence". In that era, politicians thought of the media with trepidation; they feared as well as respected it. But they did not want radio to go the way of newspapers where one publisher could "take over" as many markets as they wanted to.

This was also why the U.S. limited, with one exception, stations to a measly 50,000 watts while other nations allowed 100,000 and even more.

Unfortunately, while those limits are still there, the audience has chosen to get its news and music from elsewhere.

But the whole "limits" issue is void now that over the air radio has multiple competitors and listeners have far, far more alternatives.

 

[fybush]

Buffett has invested in media over the years, of course. He owned a chain of newspapers that included the Omaha World-Herald and Buffalo News, but sold them to the bottom feeders at Lee Enterprises. Nothing was stopping him from buying every paper in the country if he'd wanted to.

And he could have done what Nexstar and Sinclair have done and bought as many TV stations as the caps would allow. But instead he's owned only a few stations (Miami, San Antonio) and has never invested beyond that.

So, yeah, I don't put a lot of stock in the boogeyman theory either.

 

[davideduardo]

Buffett has invested in media over the years, of course. He owned a chain of newspapers that included the Omaha World-Herald and Buffalo News, but sold them to the bottom feeders at Lee Enterprises. Nothing was stopping him from buying every paper in the country if he'd wanted to.

And he could have done what Nexstar and Sinclair have done and bought as many TV stations as the caps would allow. But instead he's owned only a few stations (Miami, San Antonio) and has never invested beyond that.

So, yeah, I don't put a lot of stock in the boogeyman theory either.

Today, even the boogeyman has trouble getting financing for radio. We call Ms Valencia and Ms Morales Rocketto to the stand...

 

[gr8oldies]

Actually, none of the largest group operators have a single owner. Even family-controlled Urban One is a public corporation and a huge percentage of the shares are owned by "outsiders" (the family owns share with super-voting-power, though).

Again, over the air radio has become a smaller and smaller source of audio services. One company could own all the stations in the U.S. and still be small compared to the big enterprises that own streaming and podcast and other audio services.

Heck, just one company, SiriusXM had revenue of over $8 billion last year. All radio stations together were around $12 to $14 billion, depending on whose estimates you look at. Spotify, with £4.5 average quarterly billings, has about twice the revenue of all radio. Then the is Apple, Amazon and all the others.


The problem is that, even with caps lifted, the vast majority of U.S. stations are not of interest to any of the groups that might survive. First, take the roughly 4,800 AM stations. Nobody wants them.

Then there are thousands of FMs that offer a big owner no benefits. They may be rimshots with low power or limited signals near rated markets or in areas where it is not even worth adding tiny bits of coverage vs. the cost of maintaining the facility.

The big problem is that nobody want's to buy radio stations because OTA radio is in a slow but unstoppable decline. What we will likely see is trading between the larger owners so that they have viable clusters in the markets they choose to remain in.

Agree that no one will be going on a shopping spree. Probably a deal or a trade here and there. Maybe IHeart buys another FM in Cincinnati for WLW-FM

 

[exdjted]

Placing limits on Radio through ownership caps or revenue caps is wrong. Nobody looks at Chick-fil-A or KFC and says once they sell a certain number of sandwiches a day that they have to stop selling so Wendy's or McDonald's has a chance to catch up. If you have a better idea, or a better product than the next guy, or work harder than everyone else, you deserve to reap the rewards.

If I own all 4 FMs in a market of 8,000 people in a small town in Arkansas, who does that hurt? If I can buy 5 or 6 FMs and 2 AMs in a town of 30,000 in Tennessee, who does that hurt? Chances are, no matter what I or anyone else programs, I won't get every listener in town to tune in. I won't get every advertiser in town to buy. Some people don't use Radio at all. Some business owners are convinced that word-of-mouth is the be-all, end-all and nothing will persuade them to buy. Eliminating the caps won't change that. It's my money I'm investing. No one else has a stake in this. If I fail, that's on me. If I succeed, that's on me as well.

Regarding the Soros angle, he was held up so the opposition had someone to pillory. Every knight needs a dragon to slay. They stirred people into a frenzy that liberal talk would dominate the airwaves. Can you actually show me a syndicated liberal Radio talk show that's available for syndication today? Talk radio is cheap to air. It's mostly barter, it's syndicated, so the local station doesn't have to pay for talent, and it doesn't bankrupt anyone in terms of royalties.

I at least applaud the FCC for finally doing their job, lo these many years late, by actually doing more than a drive-by during the Quadrennial Review like past commissioners have done. We may not get a full lifting of the caps, but a change of some sort is coming. As long as it's in the small markets I haunt, I'll be happy. That's why I make phone calls and write letters to my Congresspeople, and that's why I actually press the Commission staff regarding this. I'm not waiting for them to take action. I'm actively working on them to do it.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Where my desire to see the caps abolished comes from small markets. I've seen too many of my friends die with their stations unsold because the only buyer available was the crosstown competitor. I have a deal that can't be completed under the current rules because of an AM contour that covers 2 signals and puts the entire deal over the cap. It costs money to fight it, and my Washington attorney has a meter attached to his cellphone. Ask me how I know. If the caps are lifted, some of these deals will be able to go through tomorrow.

The FCC's small market caps make very little sense to me. I also know of situations like this.

One station owner with several stations in Illinois, Kentucky and Missouri, Russ Withers, died somewhat suddenly. When it came time for his daughter, Dana, to inherit the stations, the FCC ruled that she could not inherit all. Part of the complication was that Dana Withers owned a few stations in her own right, before Russ's death.
So now several of the former Withers stations belong to K-Love or VCY or other religious satcasters. Only a couple landed with other commercial broadcasters.

 

[exdjted]

The FCC's small market caps make very little sense to me. I also know of situations like this.

One station owner with several stations in Illinois, Kentucky and Missouri, Russ Withers, died somewhat suddenly. When it came time for his daughter, Dana, to inherit the stations, the FCC ruled that she could not inherit all. Part of the complication was that Dana Withers owned a few stations in her own right, before Russ's death.
So now several of the former Withers stations belong to K-Love or VCY or other religious satcasters. Only a couple landed with other commercial broadcasters.

I knew Russ well. Dana loves Radio. That was just one example of why the caps make no sense. Dana is one of the owners who hasn't gone all syndicated or voice-tracked. She still has live people working for her. I have no doubt if Russ were alive today he would be supporting the elimination of the caps. Unfortunately, I can bet that someone reading this will think that she didn't deserve to have all of those stations anyway. More's the pity.

 

[Weiserguy]

If I own all 4 FMs in a market of 8,000 people in a small town in Arkansas, who does that hurt? If I can buy 5 or 6 FMs and 2 AMs in a town of 30,000 in Tennessee, who does that hurt?

I understand that this isn't a perfect analogy, since Washington DC isn't the kind of markets you're describing. But revisit the Washington Post saga for a moment. The billionaire Jeff Bezos acquired it as their White Knight. He threw resources into improving it and propping it up financially for something close to a decade. In the greater scheme of things it was petty cash for him, chump change. But then a certain ex-president ran for, and got, re-elected, and Bezos had/has a number of other, more substantive interests before the government, so the quid pro quos started happening. Killing an endorsement editorial. Cutting back on the paper's journalism. Sending reporters, et al, packing to curry favor with the New Regime's blood lust.

WashDC is a major market, and WaPo is only one media player, albeit the one with the most journalistic history and prestige. Fortunately there are others to pick up the slack. But if you're in a "small town in Arkansas", and you acquire all the FM stations in the market, *and* you want to be a player, not just a business-person, the potential is there for you to do a lot of damage to local democracy. That is who it will hurt. Your neighbors, your listeners, your customers.

Regarding the Soros angle, he was held up so the opposition had someone to pillory. Every knight needs a dragon to slay. They stirred people into a frenzy that liberal talk would dominate the airwaves. Can you actually show me a syndicated liberal Radio talk show that's available for syndication today?

To a large extent, those listeners want more nuance than talk radio is willing or able to deliver. That's why so many of those listeners have abandoned and are listening to NPR (et al) programming.

 

[TheBigA]

Killing an endorsement editorial. Cutting back on the paper's journalism. Sending reporters, et al, packing to curry favor with the New Regime's blood lust.

I think you're making an unfair connection. The reporters were warned a few years ago that the blank check was over. The cutbacks happened because circulation dropped to half of what it was ten years ago, not because of a quid pro quo. If the people running the paper had done a better job, the cutbacks wouldn't have been as severe. They were trying to run a full traditional newspaper, when the economics of that kind of thing have disappeared. Similar to running a fully staffed local radio station today.

The fact of the matter is that there's absolutely nothing that the media can do that will "curry favor" with this regime. Ask Rupert Murdoch. If you read The Post, and I do every day, it hasn't softened it's criticism of the administration one bit.

 

[davideduardo]

To a large extent, those listeners want more nuance than talk radio is willing or able to deliver. That's why so many of those listeners have abandoned and are listening to NPR (et al) programming.

I differ in perspective here. The "right" has rather similar views on the main subjects like immigration, education, government involvement in the private sector. The "left" has subsets with specific interests such as gender, race and the environment. Each group is keen on their own interest, but not as involved... or even at odds with... other "liberal" causes.

I look at the two decade ago failure of our only American liberal talk network to have more to do with listeners not wanting to hear about "liberal" topics that were not their own personal liberal topic.

My comparison is with Alternative Rock as a radio format. If you do research, you find that those who like the genre only really like a specific subset of the songs. And there are, in music tests I have been a part of, at least three major subsets. Each one loves on set of songs, tolerates another and hates the last of the three. And each group loves and hates different songs. So if you have an alternative formatted station, your listeners will only "like" or "love" one out of every three songs.

 

[TheBigA]

I look at the two decade ago failure of our only American liberal talk network to have more to do with listeners not wanting to hear about "liberal" topics that were not their own personal liberal topic.

I'm starting to see some of that happening now on the right. It was easier to be united when they were on the outside. But now that they're in power, we're seeing a fracturing of the right on things such as the tariffs, the Iran war, and even freedom of the press. Granted, they all agree that the other party is a bunch of radical socialists. So that's still a popular talk radio topic. But the president talks about his health care plan, and he's not getting much support from his party or talk radio.

 

[exdjted]

But if you're in a "small town in Arkansas", and you acquire all the FM stations in the market, *and* you want to be a player, not just a business-person, the potential is there for you to do a lot of damage to local democracy. That is who it will hurt. Your neighbors, your listeners, your customers.

You got me. Yep, I'm going to spend in the high six figures to take over Rooster Poot, AR.. If they wont listen to the radio, I plan to have the tower lights blink in a pattern that subliminally tells people "I am the Overlord of Rooster Poot. You WILL respect my authority!"

Jeez. Why in God's name do some people jump to the most extreme position? Do you REALLY think 4 signals are going to attract enough listeners in a small town to sway public opinion on ANY subject? Half of the population doesn't even listen to radio. Not everyone in the remaining half is going to like the 4 formats. Not enough of them are going to tune in long enough to change their opinion on whether it's overcast or partly cloudy outside. I don't know what radio station you're listening to, but that's an alarmist, very extreme view.

I'm not buying anything to be a player. I'm buying some stations to have something to do so I don't go stir crazy sitting at my home waiting to see if my 83 year old mother in the nursing home decides to make a break for it and send her wheelchair hurtling down Parr Avenue in a bid for freedom from Wednesday Bingo and Wheel of Fortune Fridays. She can't remember what she had for lunch, but she's convinced she can silence the alarm on the exit door.

If I can't convince my wife that chili dogs are fine dining, I sure can't bend a town of 8000 people to my will.

 

[Weiserguy]

You got me. Yep, I'm going to spend in the high six figures to take over Rooster Poot, AR.. If they wont listen to the radio, I plan to have the tower lights blink in a pattern that subliminally tells people "I am the Overlord of Rooster Poot. You WILL respect my authority!"

Jeez. Why in God's name do some people jump to the most extreme position? Do you REALLY think 4 signals are going to attract enough listeners in a small town to sway public opinion on ANY subject? Half of the population doesn't even listen to radio. Not everyone in the remaining half is going to like the 4 formats. Not enough of them are going to tune in long enough to change their opinion on whether it's overcast or partly cloudy outside. I don't know what radio station you're listening to, but that's an alarmist, very extreme view.

I'm not buying anything to be a player. I'm buying some stations to have something to do so I don't go stir crazy sitting at my home waiting to see if my 83 year old mother in the nursing home decides to make a break for it and send her wheelchair hurtling down Parr Avenue in a bid for freedom from Wednesday Bingo and Wheel of Fortune Fridays. She can't remember what she had for lunch, but she's convinced she can silence the alarm on the exit door.

If I can't convince my wife that chili dogs are fine dining, I sure can't bend a town of 8000 people to my will.

What we've got was an imprecise use of "you". When I wrote the cited paragraph, I didn't mean "you" as @exdjted , Ted. It was a more general "you", as in anybody looking to corner the market on all of a community's media. Does Rooster Poot have a local newspaper? Or a TV station? Is anyone covering the village council meetings? If I had only directed by comment to you personally, then I deserved that response. But I think a reasonable reader understood it was a more general comment about monopolization of local media.

 

[davideduardo]

What we've got was an imprecise use of "you". When I wrote the cited paragraph, I didn't mean "you" as @exdjted , Ted. It was a more general "you", as in anybody looking to corner the market on all of a community's media. Does Rooster Poot have a local newspaper? Or a TV station?

Name a town of less than 10,000 that has a daily paper any more. Or even more, one with its own local TV station.

Is anyone covering the village council meetings?

How many independent, non-group owned stations cover such meetings anywhere?

If I had only directed by comment to you personally, then I deserved that response. But I think a reasonable reader understood it was a more general comment about monopolization of local media.

Every significant town has a multitude of local web news and information sources. Over the air media, struggling to survive, can't be expected to do what you suggest (the town council meetings) no matter what.

36 years ago, the company I was in charge of bought, as an experiment in moving out of Puerto Rico (where we were at the station limit) a small market station in Florida. There was one other station in a market of over 20,000. There was one in the "next town" with an FM that sold in our market, and our FM sold in theirs. Then came Docket 80-90. 5 new stations in the market, no increase in revenue. We cut all the live local programming and automated; still could not make money and sold the station at a loss of about $700 thousand.

Docket 80-90 killed local service in many markets. That was 35 years ago.