Non-Com Music Formats should be illegal.

[edbeckdotcom]

Re: Bitter Pills On Sale NOW at...

I'm the only one on this board actually in the thick of it, I hope all who read this understand that there's no one here with more experience on these topics than myself. I don't need to explain my personal qualifications, but as you can see...the many so-called intelligent people on here would rather make sarcastic comments about me, my station or anything else, are they guilty of something ? My guess is they are. This has turned into a forum where people twist words, mock commentary, and give little input other than what they would do if THEY owned a radio station.

Many of these people have personally called the FCC like they were some sort of Robin Hood of Telecommunications....and they're gonna save the day! For one reason or another, we all know that the FCC only investigates complaints, they never listen to any radio stations. So, we THEN have to ask ourselves, what's their real personal motivation? Remember that. People who are commenting about me have other intentions, maybe they're jealous, maybe they don't like me for the things i say or do. And I'm not done.


now...


I approached
the FCC with a phone call, and they seem to agree with 2 of the points made in the legal team's letter to me:

1. The end of each song does NOT constitute the end of a program. It is against regulations to interrupt programming with an underwritten annoumcement. If you plan 3 hours of music, the announcements must fall at the beginning and end of the program.

2.We feel is not in the character of public radio to air 'liners' or 'promos' between songs during the program(s). With the exception of your Legal ID, other elements are to be treated as underwritten announcements.


-ed

 

[radiomike]

Correct information on Underwriting.

> I approached
> the FCC with a phone call, and they seem to agree with 2 of
> the points made in the legal team's letter to me:

Good..Once again, the "legal team's letter" is not accurate.

> 1. The end of each song does NOT constitute the end of a
> program. It is against regulations to interrupt programming
> with an underwritten annoumcement. If you plan 3 hours of
> music, the announcements must fall at the beginning and end
> of the program.

This is incorrect. The policy states beginning, end, intermission, or natural break in the program. Commission staff has indicated the end of a song IS a natural break. This is ongoing policy. I verified this with Commission staff and two communications attorneys just before I typed this.

> 2.We feel is not in the character of public radio to air
> 'liners' or 'promos' between songs during the program(s).
> With the exception of your Legal ID, other elements are to
> be treated as underwritten announcements.

Once again, not correct. There is no prohibition in the rules or FCC policy. There is nothing to prohibit this. This is verified by FCC staff and communications attorneys.

If you maintain the following of the rules, and on good faith, program the station within the nature of a non-commercial service, then you should be fine, no matter what the format. I would strongly shy away from the LONG station breaks, where you run four minutes of underwriting messages. This could be seen as violating the nature of non-commercial radio. Also, playing an underwriting announcement after every song would also likely call this into question. However, if all you wanted to do was air Public Service Announcements and legal ID's 24/7, there is nothing in the rules to prohibit that. In fact, some of the new LPFM services were proposed as TIS stations for highway and other area information as a public service.

I would suggest you get accurate information from groups such as CBI if you need more legal advice that is current and accurate.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Tom, you're the only one who got it right. Training for
> students is
> acceptable, assuming that students would be playing music to
> 'learn' radio.
> This is different from satellite-fed signals of religious
> music, as one example.
>

But to hold such a narrow view of "educational" would be a disservice to education in general.

Remember, there are non-comm stations, and there are educational stations. The fact that the FCC uses those two terms to delineate a separate portion of the band (in most cases), or a separate allocation within the commercial band (in other cases, see, e.g., those 10 watt educational FMs unwilling to raise power in the late 70s/early 80s. They are grandfathered class-Ds, within the comm band, with NO protection, even from move-ins.)

Quick primer in rulemaking and legislation: when at all possible, terms used by a legislature or agency are to be read as separate elements, with differing definitions and functions. The reasoning is that if the agency, here the FCC, used non-comm and educational, they must intend for there to be different provisions--however slight--that pertain to each, otherwise, it would result in redundancy, which is to be avoided.

Therefore, satellite-fed religious programming can have an educational aspect, if aired on an educational station, if there is ANY discernable educational purpose that can be retrieved from that programming--from the teachings itself, to the kid sitting down, running the automation or taking transmitter readings. Same for music--even if it's run off satellite or Prophet (or its progeny), if any educational value can be obtained by running that programming--however slight--it qualifies. In most cases, the fact that a college station has even one student on staff succeeds.

Further, getting to your argument about the legal ID breaking up the programming (and likewise for underwriter announcements), another rule of statutory and regulation interpretation is that two rules (or laws) are to be read in harmony if at all possible. One rule sets forth the requirements for non-comm and educational programming--entertainment, education, public service, etc. Another, separate rule, REQUIRES a legal ID on all licensed stations as close as possible to the top of the hour. A third rule permits underwriting announcements, etc.

These rules are not all lumped together under the long-form rule you suggest. They are separate enactments of the FCC, passed at varying times, and pertaining to varying topics. They are not to be read out of existence under one rule (your long-form programming argument), buta re to be read in harmony and to avoid absurdities and redundancies. To wit., long form music programming is permitted; a legal ID is required near the top of the hour--such a required element does not need to conform to the long-form programming rule your advocate (and in fact the legal ID rule does not mention conformity with any other rule--it stands alone); furthermore, the underwriting annoucements are permitted under a different rule yet, without any mention of its placement within long-form programming or otherwise. There are specifics as to what the underwriting announcement can say, but that rule places no further restrictions on it.

Above all else, the long-form programming rule mentions NOTHING about legal IDs or underwriting. If it is not included in the rule, it is implied to be excluded from coverage: inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Because the long-form programming (or any programming) rule for non-comm/educationals mentions nothing about legal ID requirements or underwriting announcement requirements, the long-form programming rule does not apply to those elements of program matter. This is further underlined by the fact that they each have SEPARATE rules which set forth the requirements for those bits of program matter, rules which cannot be invaded by another rule absent expressed notation in the rule itself or by the FCC in a decision.

Neither has happened.

Your unnamed source (and you) have an interesting, novel, yet inaccurate argument. Your source (or you) may submit it to the FCC, but don't expect to see any action. It's rife with inconsitencies and goes against FCC and legal precedent.

 

[Ai4i]

How would it be today?

How would broadcasting be today if in the early days of radio, the federal government had said that no radio stations could accept direct compensation to air program material or air any material not intended to enhance the entertainment value of said material in question? In other words, stations could be put on the air consistant with frequency availability and air entertaining, informative, and other types of programming without commercials.
Would there be a lot more religeous and political interest stations? What do you suppose the landscape would look and sound like?<P ID="signature">______________
_____________________________________________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology</P>

 

[shadowman]

> Yes, it says entertainment programs. Not to be construed as
> long-form programming as in music formatting.
>

As a person who worked behind the scenes with some DJs at a local FM college station, your definition of "entertainment" programming is too narrow. Music programming is allowed under FCC rules for non-commercial stations. TO be very honest, non-commercial stations play music that is being ignored by commercial stations (try to get Classical, Jazz, Indie Rock, and most Dance music on commercial radio on most markets).

I am concerned about you wanting all non-commercial stations to have NPR programming....