NAB says it will make radio more "Local"

[Groove1670]

From Radio-Info Article:

" NAB also says it's time to kill off the "AM/FM subcaps" rule. That would let one party own up to eight FMs in some markets. NAB says the change would "provide greater flexibility in radio ownership without increasing the number of stations owned by any one entity."

NAB says it will make radio more "Local" Your thoughts.

 

[TheBigA]

The big problem right now is that owners are deserting AM radio like rats on a sinking ship. The major owners like CBS have some of the biggest heritage AMs in their portfolio. They have a choice: Under the subcaps, they have to sell some of those AMs if they want to buy any additional FMs. That would be a problem, because the smaller local owners simply won't have the resources to run the AMs the way they've been run.

Let's face it: The days of local owners in every town are gone. Local owners don't have the money or resources to run radio stations the way that people have become accustomed. They've had opportunities to buy stations in the last few years, with prices dropping to 30 year lows, and they haven't stepped up to the plate. So the owners we have now will be the owners that we will have in the future. So how can we make it possible for these owners to buy more FMs without being forced to sell the AMs.

The BEST way the FCC can help local radio, however, is to eliminate the newspaper-broadcasting co-ownership rule. Eliminating this arcane rule would allow local newspapers to share their immense newsgathering resources among multiple platforms and better serve their local communities. Until that rule is eliminated, you either have major non-local owners with a local presence, or minor local owners who run brokered programming. That's the reality. We can talk about mythology all day. But it doesn't change the world we live in.

 

[davideduardo]

Let's face it: The days of local owners in every town are gone. Local owners don't have the money or resources to run radio stations the way that people have become accustomed. They've had opportunities to buy stations in the last few years, with prices dropping to 30 year lows, and they haven't stepped up to the plate.

Plus: the elephant in the room is the Internet. Only large station groups or groupings of many stations can put together a web-based offering, such as iHeart, that can compete with the Pandora-type pure plays.

For local information and news, combining two dying breeds, newspapers and AM radio, makes good sense from the listener perspective. Together, such combos can promote and integrate a web presence and provide information at the local level on multiple platforms.

But more than this, the FCC's concepts of "diversity of local voices" and "local service" have to come in line with reality. If nobody makes money, having 20 different owners of dead radio stations and a dying newspaper or two provides no diversity and no service. Allowing combos of some kind permits economies, aggregates paltforms and suits listener needs today.

 

[radiophiler]

Have to agree with BigA and David that getting rid of the broadcast-newspaper co-ownership ban altogether, not just in the largest markets, would help bring more news gathering resources to radio and maybe even TV.
If the FCC cares at all about local news and information on radio (and I realize it may not care), this is one of the biggest things it can do to help that.

 

[TheBigA]

All the FCC needs to do is study how great newspaper-owned radio stations were before the ban, and how newspaper-owned stations today (with waiver) are among the best run radio stations in the country. If the FCC would simply do its job, and monitor the communications marketplace, it would learn a lot. Sadly, the current legislation being discussed in Congress won't address the biggest problems with this mis-managed agency.

 

[Bongwater]

They said this with Telecom '96. And look what happened.......

I'm not falling for it. At all. My memory isn't that short.

Besides, they have HD Radio.

MAKE USE OF IT.

 

[TheBigA]

They said this with Telecom '96. And look what happened.......

Radio still is local. Maybe the DJs aren't, but the stations are still 100% local. There are towers and transmitters everywhere. Had the 96 Act not happened, a bunch of them would have gone dark completely, and lots of places wouldn't have stations at all. There's still a lot of local program origination, and more local news now than in 1996.

No one has ever promised the Local DJ Full Employment Act. That's not what this is about. It's about having local stations in every town.

As for HD Radio, no one wants it. They're happy with OTA radio. Why buy a new radio for HD when the old one is just fine?

 

[Bongwater]

They said this with Telecom '96. And look what happened.......

Radio still is local. Maybe the DJs aren't, but the stations are still 100% local. There are towers and transmitters everywhere. Had the 96 Act not happened, a bunch of them would have gone dark completely, and lots of places wouldn't have stations at all. There's still a lot of local program origination, and more local news now than in 1996.

No one has ever promised the Local DJ Full Employment Act. That's not what this is about. It's about having local stations in every town.

As for HD Radio, no one wants it. They're happy with OTA radio. Why buy a new radio for HD when the old one is just fine?

They said this with Telecom '96. And look what happened.......

Had the 96 Act not happened, a bunch of them would have gone dark completely, and lots of places wouldn't have stations at all. There's still a lot of local program origination, and more local news now than in 1996.

I HIGHLY doubt that.....

Let's say they have their new ownership caps. Then what's the excuse, say, 10 years down the road? "Oh, we really need the NCE portion of the FM band now because we're just struggling to survive......"

And they didn't deliver on the "job creation" department either (and that WAS one of the things that was promised in the debates over Telecom '96.) They will just gut more stations for a short term profit and then whine for more stations when they realize nobody is listening to the mess they already made. People were fooled once.

And the only reason HD Radio never took off was nobody was willing to invest anything more into it than making it a static MP3 jukebox with liners. They demanded (and got) HD Radio. Yet somehow they weren't willing to make anything of it. And then blamed the market for doing what it normally does when given a lackluster option.

And if terrestrial radio seems to be drying up THIS badly, then what's the point in carrying on with it? If full power commercial FM stations go dark (not that they actually would now or EVER), then let them go dark. There's always new competitors for those frequencies. Keeps the blood circulating.....

I see through this one "Just give us more stations and we can make radio local again!" Well, then let's see what they can do with what they ALREADY HAVE FIRST. If they have enough money to buy more stations, they certainly have enough money to HIRE more local air talent.......

Only the most gullible would believe this again, so, no....

 

[TheBigA]

Let's say they have their new ownership caps. Then what's the excuse, say, 10 years down the road? "Oh, we really need the NCE portion of the FM band now because we're just struggling to survive......"

There's no crime in asking for something. No guarantee they'll get it. Same with this current situation. But I doubt they’ll ask for the NCE portion of the band. It’s easier to buy the non-coms currently in the commercial portion, which is what some companies are doing now.

And they didn't deliver on the "job creation" department either (and that WAS one of the things that was promised in the debates over Telecom '96.)

Maybe you can be more specific. What did they "promise?" And who was the "they?" There was a lot of growth in the years immediately following 1996. The growth hit a brick wall around 2004, thanks to lots of circumstances no one anticipated in 1996.

The fact is that in the last few years, the radio companies have created lots of jobs in the digital content area. That wasn't anticipated in 1996.

And the only reason HD Radio never took off was nobody was willing to invest anything more into it than making it a static MP3 jukebox with liners.

Companies have invested a lot of money in HD radio programming, including NPR. The investment hasn't paid off because people aren't buying radios. That's not just a problem for HD Radio. It's also a problem for satellite and internet radios, which also aren't selling. It's clear when you look at the facts that it has nothing to do with the content. Consumers, for the most part, are satisfied with the free content they get from OTA radio. That's why only a small percentage are willing to spend money for satellite.

And if terrestrial radio seems to be drying up THIS badly, then what's the point in carrying on with it?

This tells me you don’t understand what the NAB is asking for. The issue is AM/FM subcaps. To be specific, CBS owns a lot of heritage AM stations. If they want to buy more FMs, they must sell those AMs. Anyone who buys those AMs probably won’t be able to run them as 24/7 local news stations like WCBS or KNX. So what the NAB is saying is that the number of AMs a company owns shouldn’t be held against them when buying FMs. If you look at the specific examples, you’ll see it makes a lot of sense, and will keep those stations local.

The fact is that companies like CBS and Entercom are doing a great job with what they own, and should be allowed to buy more stations because it’s good for the public, and good for the industry.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The simple fact is that CBS, Entercom, and anybody else interested in buying more FMs can generally do that. All they have to do is sell some of their AMs. In some cases, that means selling a (very) profitable signal and hoping listeners follow to their new FM. In many cases, they simply need to sell unprofitable AMs that they own simply to prevent any real competition with their profitable AMs. Competition drives better quality, not further consolidation which is akin to monopoly.

If the AMs are so valueless, then sell them to other people who want them, and buy an FM. No, it won't be a break-even proposition. Buying a new FM will cost considerable out-of-pocket dollars as well. This is simply another attempt by Big Corporate to attempt to create de facto monopolies in particular formats and demographics.

 

[TheBigA]

If the AMs are so valueless, then sell them to other people who want them, and buy an FM.

No one is saying the AMs are "valueless." All they're saying is it's unfair to limit the number of FMs they can own because they own AMs.

And the track record has been that new owners of heritage AMs trash them and don't have the resources to run them the way they had been run by the previous owners. In the case of the CBS all-news stations like WCBS, KNX, and KYW, it's very unlikely that any other owner would keep them 24/7 local news with the level of staffing they currently have. So local service would be hurt by CBS selling those AMs. The FCC should encourage quality station owners, rather than forcing them to operate under one-size-fits-all ownership caps.

 

[TheBigA]

Competition drives better quality, not further consolidation which is akin to monopoly.

Practically speaking, competition doesn't drive quality. It drives down prices, and consequently cost-cutting, which drives down quality. Consumers buy products based on price, not quality. In terms of radio, competition drives down risk-taking in formats, and leads to more conservative music policies. It has driven down spot prices, which leaves companies with less money to hire staff. And it puts radio at a competitive disadvatage in the larger media marketplace, because broadcast radio has to compete with a government approved monopoly of satellite radio.

The government is currently preventing quality local companies from buying broadcasting properties through its arcane newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule. If local newspapers could own broadcasting, it would improve the quality of local information for the public. The government needs to grow the pool of potential owners, not limit it. Removing this ban would begin that process.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, further opportunity for one company to monopolize media in a market is good in your opinion? And will lead to more jobs, greater prosperity for all, and more local content for listeners? Puh-lease. Sure hasn't worked out that way so far.

The big boys want FMs because they're facing the mortality of AM listeners. They think that the current content isn't reaching younger listeners because of the band it's on. Reality is that the audience for most talk radio is aging into demographics that advertisers don't want. Moving that content to FM ain't gonna fix that. And giving them more stations isn't going to increase the local content on the air.

I agree with you on newspaper-radio cross-ownership, but you're trying to link two subjects that have virtually nothing in common. In fact, giving current owners the opportunity to buy more FMs without giving up AMs would increase the prices for anyone else who wants to get into the game, and limit the number of stations that would be for sale - especially to competition in the news/talk arena.

 

[TheBigA]

So, further opportunity for one company to monopolize media in a market is good in your opinion?

The only media that has ownership rules is broadcasting. So if you want to promote fair competition, all forms of media should compete with the same amount of regulation. Right now, radio operates at a disadvantage. That's wrong and needs to be changed.

My personal view is there are good owners and bad owners. But the FCC doesn't regulate that way. They view all owners as equal. So good owners are forced to operate with the same rules as bad owners, and the public suffers. But the good owners hire lots of local people and air lots of local content, and you can see that in Buffalo. The bad owners don't. But why should broadcasting operate under one-size-fits-all regulation when it's obvious that companies aren't the same?

I agree with you on newspaper-radio cross-ownership, but you're trying to link two subjects that have virtually nothing in common.

Huh? The things they have in common is ownership regulation. That's what we're talking about here, aren't we? Bad regulations should be eliminated, and both the AM/FM caps and the newspaper crossownership ban are bad regulations. There will be no more new companies getting into the radio game until the government eliminates this ban. The current crop of owners is the pool we will have, and the big fish will continue to eat the small fish, regardless of price. Something needs to be done to change that, and allowing newspapers to buy radio is one way to do it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The only media that has ownership rules is broadcasting. So if you want to promote fair competition, all forms of media should compete with the same amount of regulation. Right now, radio operates at a disadvantage. That's wrong and needs to be changed.

That's simply not so. Telecommunications in general is heavily regulated. Any service that uses the electromagnetic spectrum is regulated because it's a limited resource. About the only type of communications that isn't regulated is print media. Virtually anybody can own a printing press - or, more commonly, a copier.

The current crop of owners is the pool we will have, and the big fish will continue to eat the small fish, regardless of price. Something needs to be done to change that, and allowing newspapers to buy radio is one way to do it.

I agree with you. But allowing the current crop of owners to own more radio stations doesn't leave much for anybody - newspapers or whoever - to purchase. Clear Channel doesn't want competition. Clear Channel wants control. Allowing anybody else with the resources to program local content to gain control of a signal is not part of their game plan. You're at odds with yourself.

 

[TheBigA]

Any service that uses the electromagnetic spectrum is regulated because it's a limited resource. About the only type of communications that isn't regulated is print media. Virtually anybody can own a printing press - or, more commonly, a copier.

Radio stations compete with platforms outside the "electromagnetic spectrum." Things like satellite and the internet. They're largely unregulated, and satellite is a monopoly. The media is more than the traditional industry it once was.

But allowing the current crop of owners to own more radio stations doesn't leave much for anybody - newspapers or whoever - to purchase.

The FCC needs to do something. It would be nice if owning AMs wasn't counted against a cap. If the FCC won't approve that, then let them approve newspaper cross ownership. I'd love to have both. Right now, it's unlikely they'll do either. Clear Channel hasn't bought a radio station in 8 years, and are unlikely to buy more, even if the caps are raised. They've had the opportunity to buy stations in markets where they are under cap, and they haven't done so. So I have no reason to worry about CC at this point.

 

[Casey]

Any service that uses the electromagnetic spectrum is regulated because it's a limited resource. About the only type of communications that isn't regulated is print media. Virtually anybody can own a printing press - or, more commonly, a copier.

Radio stations compete with platforms outside the "electromagnetic spectrum."  Things like satellite and the internet.  They're largely unregulated, and satellite is a monopoly.  The media is more than the traditional industry it once was.

But allowing the current crop of owners to own more radio stations doesn't leave much for anybody - newspapers or whoever - to purchase.

The FCC needs to do something.  It would be nice if owning AMs wasn't counted against a cap.  If the FCC won't approve that, then let them approve newspaper cross ownership.  I'd love to have both.  Right now, it's unlikely they'll do either.  Clear Channel hasn't bought a radio station in 8 years, and are unlikely to buy more, even if the caps are raised.  They've had the opportunity to buy stations in markets where they are under cap, and they haven't done so.  So I have no reason to worry about CC at this point.

The fact that radio competes with internet and satellite is not a good enough excuse to change the regulations. Radio uses public airwaves that make it the most accessible form of radio in existence. If this advantage alone is not enough for radio, then changing the ownership cap rules will not make much of a difference. Satellite radio has a huge disadvantage, the subscription. The internet on the other hand, has many issues regarding availability. Broadcast radio doesn't have either of these issues. The issues that broadcast radio does have that are perhaps the only reasons satellite and internet radio took off in the first place, is the advertising and unsatisfactory content. If it were not for the consistent advertisements and content that fails to meets a listener's expectations, then there would not be a place for satellite or internet radio today. As is they exist and owning more FM stations will not make the driving factors behind satellite and internet radio go away. A listener can only listen to one station at a time. Owning more FM stations may gain you more overall listeners in a market, but it won't make you more competitive against satellite or the internet.

The rules forbidding newspapers on the other hand, while seemingly unfair, would probably not help local content should they be eliminated. Most local newspapers do not have the money to buy stations. The newspapers who might would be the ones owned by large conglomerates. I would argue that many of the newspapers owned by conglomerates and even locally-owned newspapers have been delivering increasingly poor content. They have been cutting employees and delivering less local content, just as radio stations are doing today. I fail to see how a newspaper company can meet the needs of a local community any better than current station owners.

As far as regulations go, broadcast radio uses public airwaves, which is a limited resource. Internet radio uses private infrastructure and is an unlimited resource. There is not a single valid reason to regulate internet radio and there never will be. Internet radio is only like broadcast radio in that it delivers content to a listener. Beyond that it is entirely different in how it functions and how it delivers the content. That may seem unfair to radio broadcasters, but that is the way it works.

Practically speaking, competition doesn't drive quality.  It drives down prices, and consequently cost-cutting, which drives down quality.  Consumers buy products based on price, not quality.  In terms of radio, competition drives down risk-taking in formats, and leads to more conservative music policies.  It has driven down spot prices, which leaves companies with less money to hire staff.  And it puts radio at a competitive disadvatage in the larger media marketplace, because broadcast radio has to compete with a government approved monopoly of satellite radio.

The only thing stopping radio broadcasters from taking the risk of trying new formats and more creative music policies is the fear of failure. The fear of failure creates a lack of creativity and therefore a lack of innovation. The lack of innovation eventually leads to failure. Tim Westergren is a visionary, who threw aside the risk of failure to create an innovative product. Broadcast radio needs more people like Tim if it hopes to have a future. It needs to stopping blaming the FCC for the problems it has and instead, figure out how to fix them or how to adapt.

 

[TheBigA]

If this advantage alone is not enough for radio, then changing the ownership cap rules will not make much of a difference.

The subject of this thread is that the NAB wants to adjust the AM/FM subcaps, and their reason isn't to benefit the owners, but rather the public. As I said earlier in this thread, the main company affected by the subcaps is CBS, which owns several heritage AMs, and programs them with 24/7 local news. They could sell those AMs, but everyone knows that any new owner who buys them won't keep them 24/7 local news. Why? Because it's way too expensive a format to do on AM. So you can hold to your opinion, and force CBS to sell its AMs. But when the new owners flip them to satellite talk, I will say "I told you so." That's not a threat. Just look at the rest of the AM dial. What makes you think heritage AMs are immune?

As for Tim Westergrin, he may be a brilliant visionary who took a risk, but his product is losing money, and everyone knows it. He will soon cash out with billions in his pocket, and his once-brilliant invention will either go bankrupt, or will be bought by Clear Channel.

Meanwhile the FCC has over 40 years of terrible regulatory history under its belt. They alone ruined the American system of broadcasting by over-licensing the spectrum, and walking away from the mess they made. They deserve all the blame they can get.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If CBS is allowed to buy more FMs, they'll simply put their current news/talk product on an FM signal. If they don't have to sell their heritage AMs, they'll simply simulcast. There's actually a net loss of programming diversity in the market.

If CBS sells the AMs to buy FMs, they might end up as satellite repeaters. They might end up in the hands of community groups. They might become a playground for programming that's too risky or has too small an audience to support a full-power FM. Either way, that beats simply being part of a simulcast.

If we're going to push for changes in regulations regarding AMs, how about this? Kill AM IBOC, restore 10KHz bandwidth, and restore Motorola C-QUAM stereo as a preferred technology. AM could sound so much better than it does now. Maybe manufacturers would do a better job with receivers if they were assured that there was a stable standard. At worst, millions of existing radios would sound significantly better than either current AM, most satellite feeds, and most Internet streams.

 

[TheBigA]

Either way, that beats simply being part of a simulcast.

I'd like to see examples of where the sale of an AM became a "playground for programming." Hundreds of AMs have been sold in the last few years. Name a few that have actually become beacons of quality for local radio. The last 20 years of history has demonstrated that any change for AM radio has been negative. Why are you so attached to regulation that has led to the demise of the band? It's obvious that AM needs a change in regulation in order to survive.

Kill AM IBOC, restore 10KHz bandwidth, and restore Motorola C-QUAM stereo as a preferred technology. AM could sound so much better than it does now.

This assumption is based on the idea that listeners are motivated by technical quality, not content. It also assumes that electronics manufacturers would also start spending more money on providing quality receivers that would allow the technical improvements to be heard. Your proposal wouldn't solve the other audio quality problems, such as electronic interference.