So long as the station's license is paid up. And even then, it can only force the station to go silent until it pays up or fine it if it remains on the air with that expired license.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
New York Ratings August 2024 - WCBS 880 Goes Out With A Whimper
- Thread starter DToTheJ
- Start date
So really the FCC doesn’t have any real teeth.
Who owns the airwaves? I was always under the impression that it’s the FCC.
They regulate the airwaves. There's a difference.
If an owner does something illegal, the FCC steps in. Bankruptcy isn't illegal.
Ask Congress for more money to hire more field agents
Maybe it’s time to allow swearing on the radio. Think about it. Music has evolved with the times, but FCC regulations have not.
Determining whether a station is well operated or even whether it can ever be profitable is a "market force". The FCC does not regulate the management skills of operators, nor should it; they regulate compliance with technical rules and some limited content rules. But they don't regulate formats or the way a station is otherwise operated
Any deeper regulation would likely be considered a violation of many principles of United States law, starting with the First Amendment.
Canada's regulator does make that determination before issuing new broadcasting licenses up there. Applicants have to prove that the market can support another radio station before the CRTC will grant a license, even if there are lots of vacant frequencies available. David, you have spoken favorably about Canada's approach in other threads on this site. There are pros and cons to each nation's approach.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between the United States and other countries, such as the example cited above. That's what makes it America. There are strong anti-regulatory forces here that benefit the winners but that also ensure that there will be more losers.
I have only spoken favorably about Canada keeping the bands less cluttered... from nearly no daytimers to a move of AMs to FMs, Canada has tried to keep viable competition through limiting overpopulation. But there are so many things I find wrong, from CanCon to intervention in format choices to things like not letting Francophone stations playing English songs.
American radio is much more highly regulated than any of the nations in Latin America where I have worked. And I have found that places like Chile, where content and formats are far less regulated while allowing true national networks have better radio with a greater variety of offerings and much higher listeneing levels despite and greater percentage of citizens using smartphones.
I know that you know better than that. Indecency rules don't apply after 10PM. Obscenity is forever. You just have to prove it and good luck with the three tiered system you have to go through!
- Status