I'm sure some will find flaws in this, but I'm not so sure the latest proposal from LPAM advocates is such a great idea, in part. While I support the general tone of the proposal, I take issue with the nationwide cap of 12 radio stations that could be owned by one entity should the FCC accept the provisions put forth.
Whether we agree or not, Clear Channel can own as many stations as they want, providing they follow market limits. With 290+ rated markets and a nearly infinite amount of others, they could theoretically own thousands of stations in the U.S. alone (and a lot of CPs come next filing window). The issue with LPAM and community broadcasting should be community. If one entity could program fifty stations with music that fits the local demographics, regional programming for multiple LPAMs in a market, etc., from one location, why not allow them to do so if they meet stringent service requirements?
By service requirements, I mean providing actual service to a community, not just having a name on a license. That could mean having a local team broadcast high school sports events on Friday nights, city council meetings, local PSAs, a talk show with the Mayor, etc. If there is local support, I don't see why not. Have limits that mandate a certain amount of local advertising so huge operators can't swoop in a throw national buys on 2,000 LPAMs.
My qualm with the proposal is that, for example, in the large metro where I live, I can see opportunities for several communities with distinct identities that could benefit from having the aforementioned services on the radio. But the proposed rulemaking would limit ownership to one station per market. What would be so wrong with having a central facility to feed content to low-power transmitters around the market (say, within 20 miles), provided each station had a small staff of volunteers or paid employees to run audio for each community-specific station? I realize this may open up the argument that community radio could become as mundane and overresearched as full-power AM/FM, but with limits the set more reasonable ownership caps and kept conglomerates out, I don't see why this couldn't be done.
Is the problem with CC, Infinity, Entercom, etc. that they own hundreds upon hundreds of stations, or that they pump out the same crap and severed all tied with their communities? When a CC morning show host spends his breaks reading traffic for four other markets, that becomes bothersome. But for any market where a large conglomerate has actually maintained local air talent, promotions staff, community involvement, high school sports, etc., what gripe can be laid against corporate radio? In the end, it's about what's delivered to the listener and not what we in the business nit pick about. Many of our community newspapers are merely one of twenty, one for each town in a greater metro area. Have a few receptionists had to find other jobs, sure. But are we being cheated out of a newspaper? No. Why a local group of radio experts with a proven commitment to serving community radio well shouldn't be allowed to do so is beyond me.
Whether we agree or not, Clear Channel can own as many stations as they want, providing they follow market limits. With 290+ rated markets and a nearly infinite amount of others, they could theoretically own thousands of stations in the U.S. alone (and a lot of CPs come next filing window). The issue with LPAM and community broadcasting should be community. If one entity could program fifty stations with music that fits the local demographics, regional programming for multiple LPAMs in a market, etc., from one location, why not allow them to do so if they meet stringent service requirements?
By service requirements, I mean providing actual service to a community, not just having a name on a license. That could mean having a local team broadcast high school sports events on Friday nights, city council meetings, local PSAs, a talk show with the Mayor, etc. If there is local support, I don't see why not. Have limits that mandate a certain amount of local advertising so huge operators can't swoop in a throw national buys on 2,000 LPAMs.
My qualm with the proposal is that, for example, in the large metro where I live, I can see opportunities for several communities with distinct identities that could benefit from having the aforementioned services on the radio. But the proposed rulemaking would limit ownership to one station per market. What would be so wrong with having a central facility to feed content to low-power transmitters around the market (say, within 20 miles), provided each station had a small staff of volunteers or paid employees to run audio for each community-specific station? I realize this may open up the argument that community radio could become as mundane and overresearched as full-power AM/FM, but with limits the set more reasonable ownership caps and kept conglomerates out, I don't see why this couldn't be done.
Is the problem with CC, Infinity, Entercom, etc. that they own hundreds upon hundreds of stations, or that they pump out the same crap and severed all tied with their communities? When a CC morning show host spends his breaks reading traffic for four other markets, that becomes bothersome. But for any market where a large conglomerate has actually maintained local air talent, promotions staff, community involvement, high school sports, etc., what gripe can be laid against corporate radio? In the end, it's about what's delivered to the listener and not what we in the business nit pick about. Many of our community newspapers are merely one of twenty, one for each town in a greater metro area. Have a few receptionists had to find other jobs, sure. But are we being cheated out of a newspaper? No. Why a local group of radio experts with a proven commitment to serving community radio well shouldn't be allowed to do so is beyond me.