Pirates..

[nocomradio]

..but Radio is a...well, you know. You don't have to like it. Just accept it.

And unfortunately, that is the attitude from most station operators.

I don't agree with lawbreaking, and I don't agree with doing as you please, but from a business standpoint I certainly don't agree with the attitude that if the consumer doesn't like it, they can just accept it. No wonder some folks decide to take matters into their own hands.

Still, radio owners and personnel complain the loudest when things aren't well, but won't look inward at statements like that. Keep that muzzle pointed directly at your foot and let us know how things work out for you, M'kay?

 

[NHRadio]

You misunderstand me. Pleasing the customer is good business, and leads to profits IF (and only if) the audience is large enough to be attractive to advertisers.
If the consumer doesn't like it, he tunes out. Ratings drop. So do profits. How, in the name of little green apples, is that shooting myself in the foot? Where you got that I have no idea.

..but Radio is a...well, you know. You don't have to like it. Just accept it.

And unfortunately, that is the attitude from most station operators.

I don't agree with lawbreaking, and I don't agree with doing as you please, but from a business standpoint I certainly don't agree with the attitude that if the consumer doesn't like it, they can just accept it. No wonder some folks decide to take matters into their own hands.

Still, radio owners and personnel complain the loudest when things aren't well, but won't look inward at statements like that. Keep that muzzle pointed directly at your foot and let us know how things work out for you, M'kay?

 

[nocomradio]

You misunderstand me. Pleasing the customer is good business, and leads to profits IF (and only if) the audience is large enough to be attractive to advertisers.
If the consumer doesn't like it, he tunes out. Ratings drop. So do profits. How, in the name of little green apples, is that shooting myself in the foot? Where you got that I have no idea.

Maybe I do misunderstand.

When you made the statement that "if you don't like it, just accept it", I took that to mean that you feel that the consumer (or listener in this case) wasn't valued. That doesn't sound like good business to me at all, and hence, my comment on keeping the muzzle pointed at your foot.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

What I think some here on this board forget is that the airwaves are owned by the public -- not the FCC, nor Clear Channel, nor Greater Media, but the public. You, me -- the public.

The 4,592,771st repeat (yes, I'm keeping count ;D) of the same fallacious argument. No one on this board forgot it, because there are no "airwaves." One cannot own something that doesn't exist.

Radio signals don't exist until someone turns on a transmitter. By federal law, only individuals with a license from the government can turn on a transmitter, which means that those individuals are *licensed* to broadcast. Because the number of frequencies available for broadcast is limited, and because radio signals cross state lines (making them the equivalent of interstate commerce), per the Constitution and the Communications Act the federal government has sole jurisdiction to license their users. Oversimplified, sure, but that's the gist of it.

So if the African American population wants a radio station to serve them, they have the right (not the privelage, but the right) to demand it. The same with the disenfrancized WBCN and WFNX listeners.

Go ahead. Be my guest. March into the nearest radio station and demand to be put on the air. See how far you get.

BTW, no one is guaranteed reception of any radio station, nor are they guaranteed that there has to be one radio station with whatever programming they happen to like. Business people make business decisions to change formats or sell stations all the time and it's their call. The FCC cannot (per the First Amendment) and will not get involved in programming decisions.

Before FMs were put up for auction, unless I'm mistaken, I believe all one need do was apply for an FM signal, and it would be granted, assuming that you did so within a filing window, and that you weren't put into an MX with other applicants of the signal. Let's go back to that. Enough of this highest bidder bu**s**t!

Wrong on multiple counts. First, the FCC must be persuaded (by a very expensive engineering study) that a frequency can be used in a given location without interfering with other signals. Once the frequency is added in that location, parties can apply for it, although there's no guarantee that the party which petitioned to add the frequency will get it. Even if there's only one applicant, that's no guarantee the construction permit will be granted. Among other things, the applicant must have a viable business plan in place and have some reasonable idea what they're going to do with the station. They must also meet engineering standards which are a condition of the license and comply with various other regulations relating to tower lighting, Emergency Alert System, and maintenance of a local public file. It's not nearly as simple as going down to Wal-Mart, coming back with a radio station and plugging it in.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

But indeed, Salem is doing nothing with 950. It's esentially a second 590, with similar programming. It's only hurting them to keep it. So I think maybe they should just give it up, already, and donate it to "Touch 106." I'm sure that, with the 950 signal the way it is, if they recieved or could buy it, the folks over at "Touch" would gladly stop broadcasting an illegal signal; all they want is a legal one.

How is that a rediculous idea?

It's ridiculous because it's only your opinion. You aren't the owner. You don't hold the license. Salem does. Ergo, it's their call.

Touch has a snowball's chance in h*ll of ever getting a license because they have already been cited by the FCC for unlicensed operation. The character of an applicant for a broadcast license is an issue with the FCC, and someone who is a known lawbreaker doesn't even merit their consideration. Station licensees who commit crimes put their licenses on the line because of the character issue. One of the more famous local examples is RKO-General, the former licensee of WRKO(AM), WROR(FM) and WNAC-TV(the old channel 7). RKO's parent, General Tire & Rubber Company, was ordered to sell all their stations and exit the broadcasting business because the company's officers and directors had been convicted of commercial bribery.

 

[PirateJohnny]

Your idealistic view of the broadcast industry is flawed. In a perfect world, there would be enough spectrum available so everybody could have a radio station, and every format imaginable could be available to anyone who wished for it.

You just about described cable/satellite TV. Look what a mess that industry is in now.

Radio stations have bills to pay. Electric bills. Water bills. Insurance premiums. Land taxes, rent or mortgage. Employee payrolls. Music fees. Where does that money keep coming from, if you don't have advertisers or supporters? If you can't pay the bills, you go off the air, plain and simple. Serving a small niche group of the population is fine and dandy, but one day the lack of $$ return (due to lack of advertiser or supporters support) forces a decision.

 

[neo911]

What all these people who keep talking about the limited spectrum and use that excuse to justify the manner in which the FCC has licensed and allocate stations, please explain to me how, in several countries and particularly in Europe, the FM band in major cities is literally crammed with stations, from end to end, broadcasting legally?

Here's some samples:

ROME:
87.6, 87.9, 88.1, 88.3, 88.6, 88.9, 89.1, 89.3, 89.5, 89.7, 90.1, 90.3, 90.5, 90.7, 90.9...

ATHENS:
87.5, 87.7, 88.0, 88.3, 88.6, 88.9, 89.2, 89.5, 89.8, 90.1, 90.4, 90.6, 90.9, 91.2, 91.4, 91.6...

ISTANBUL:
87.5, 87.7, 88.0, 88.2, 88.4, 88.6, 88.8, 89.0, 89.2, 89.4, 89.6, 89.8, 90.0, 90.2, 90.4, 90.6...

I should mention that these stations also broadcast with rather high wattage and usually all from the same transmitter farm.

So how is it that those sorts of allocations work in those countries, but in the United States, we need separation of 0.8 MHz (at least) between most stations in large cities? How is it that LPFMs, all 10-100 watts of them, will cause "unacceptable interference" to second- and third-adjacent stations? Is there something about the laws of physics in America that is different from the laws of physics in these locations above?

I've heard the same argument in the past about analog TV and digital TV, and how a supposed advantage of digital TV was that stations could operate on adjacent frequencies, which was "not possible" with analog.

I beg to differ. In those above cities and many others, the entire VHF and UHF band was, and still is, packed from end-to-end with stations. In Italy, you have every VHF and UHF frequency in just about every region of the country occupied by a digital station, since they completed their switchover. Other countries are still in the process of switching over, and you see the analog VHF and UHF dial with stations, all adjacent to each other... on channel 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, etc. All at high power in most cases and again usually mostly from the same transmitter farms.

Here's the list for Rome, for instance: http://www.otgtv.it/lista.php?code=RM00&posto=Roma

I find it quite incredible that planes aren't falling out of the sky and consumers aren't returning their radio and television receivers back to the store in droves due to all this unacceptable interference! And that broadcasters are putting up with this! (I'm being sarcastic, of course) :

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

What all these people who keep talking about the limited spectrum and use that excuse to justify the manner in which the FCC has licensed and allocate stations, please explain to me how, in several countries and particularly in Europe, the FM band in major cities is literally crammed with stations, from end to end, broadcasting legally?

Here are some of the reasons:

1) The examples you cite are in countries much smaller geographically than the US, with generally higher population density.
2) Not all those stations are privately-owned. Many are government-owned.
3) Most of the stations in Europe run much lower power than US stations, and if I'm not mistaken also use lower frequency deviation, meaning they have smaller bandwidth requirements. In addition, a few countries such as Italy allocate stations using 50kHz spacing instead of the 200kHz used in North America.
4) Trying to listen to FM stations in some large cities in Europe is a nightmare. The stations may all be legal, but they topple over each other due to FM's capture effect, and therefore reception of some stations is unreliable even in what is supposed to be their primary coverage area.
5) The frequency allocation schemes in other countries weren't necessarily developed with private businesses in mind, stemming from a time when most broadcast stations in Europe were government-owned and the government could put the stations on whatever frequencies they wanted. In the US the allocation scheme was heavily tilted in favor of private businesses, specifically at keeping frequencies as clear as possible within a reasonable range of the communities the stations are licensed to. (IOW, if the government was going to allocate frequencies to private businesses, it's entirely reasonable for those businesses to be able to stay in business by having a frequency mostly clear of interference from other stations.)

 

[surfin bird]

We live in a society of privileges. Not rights. Radio included. Black people don't have a right to a format anymore than a white person does.



Welcome to the brave new world my friend.

 

[raccoonradio]

And welcome to the country that has freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and the free market where a radio station can choose the format it wants and thinks will do well with no government
oversee re: format. Where an alternative newspaper that embraces the "Occupy" movement can sell off their station to...Clear Channel (thus giving the paper's owner $14.5 million reasons to be happy, all with Washington's pic on them). CC thinks they can make money with it. Mindich just did, and quite well, by selling it.

 

[surfin bird]

Don't want to get into a political argument here (though I do agree with Occupy on all fronts)...But anyways...I don't have an issue with people starting threads on what format should come to Boston...I do take issue with people thinking that they're somehow ENTITLED to a) a format change and b) walking into any station, broadcasting whatever they so feel and thinking that there's going to be zero consequence and repercussion.

Geroge Carlin said that you have no rights. If you READ up on the news, you'll see that he had a point. So, don't give me that shit that a certain demographic has a right to a format flip. They don't. Nobody does. I cried when my former boss Clark Smidt told me years later that his group bought out the old B106 in Nashua. It's a business sadly. Smidt (who after working with him was a miserable person in many other aspects) felt through ROI, demographics, and a purchase and sale flipped a middle of the roader to a hot AC until it became Frank FM. And someone else will buy THAT out. Circle of life.

If you truly want change, and this goes beyond radio, you have to be patient and expect things to come slowly. You don't get your way overnight. Because if that were the case, well, anything goes. Radio will adapt to the growing needs in different forms, and radiokid will learn, and eventually do his own podcast where he gets to play whatever he so pleases. Play me out some MC5 young brotha!

 

[theradiokid]

@Surfinbird,
Thank you for your words, and for respectfully replying to my posts. You seem to have as much passion for this industry as I do. I guess you and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree -- one of the unique things about living in a free country such as this. There is nothing that can convince me that the African American population in Boston (22.4 percent), or any other minority population, don't have the right to be served by a local radio station, as they are citizens of this country, and therefore own the radio airwaves.

 

[BJSteigner]

Radio stations have bills to pay. Electric bills. Water bills. Insurance premiums. Land taxes, rent or mortgage. Employee payrolls. Music fees. Where does that money keep coming from, if you don't have advertisers or supporters? If you can't pay the bills, you go off the air, plain and simple. Serving a small niche group of the population is fine and dandy, but one day the lack of $$ return (due to lack of advertiser or supporters support) forces a decision.

We mustn't forget the $30million station license fees set in by the corrupted FCC.

 

[surfin bird]

@Surfinbird,
Thank you for your words, and for respectfully replying to my posts. You seem to have as much passion for this industry as I do. I guess you and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree -- one of the unique things about living in a free country such as this. There is nothing that can convince me that the African American population in Boston (22.4 percent), or any other minority population, don't have the right to be served by a local radio station, as they are citizens of this country, and therefore own the radio airwaves.

Aren't there low-powered FMs in and around Boston? And I appreciate YOUR passion and I don't disagree with you on certain things, but there is a by-the-book policy that we have to abide by.

 

[theradiokid]

As far as I know, there are some college stations around Boston. If a student at those colleges decides to do a hiphop show, then, there is that to listen to. If noone is interested, you're out of luck.

One more point if I may. I've just looked up the percent of African American population in Boston, VS the Latino population. The African American population, according to the cencyus, is 22.4 percent. The Latino population is 17.5 percent.

If the Latino population, who is at less of a population percentage than the African Americans, can have 4 radio stations serving them, why would it not work for Boston to have 1 radio station targeting African Americans?

And before anyone says that Boston doesn't have that many Latino or Hispanic radio stations:
1. WTTT 1150 (SP Religion)
WAMG (890)
WKOX (1430)
and WUNR (1600)

 

[NHRadio]

You left out quite a few, and WUNR has some SP programming, but it's one of many languages on there.
WNNW, Lawrence 800
WNSH, Beverly 1570
WESX Salem 1230
WJDA Quincy 1300
WLLH Lowell and Lawrence 1400
WCEC Haverhill 1490
There are more, but you get the point.

However, what you don't know is the majority of this programming (except WNNW and WKOX) is brokered, so the station owners do not care if anyone listens or not. Brokered and commercial stations are completely different business models.
Kid, you have a LOT to learn.

 

[Ciao9999]

One more point if I may. I've just looked up the percent of African American population in Boston, VS the Latino population. The African American population, according to the cencyus, is 22.4 percent. The Latino population is 17.5 percent.

If the Latino population, who is at less of a population percentage than the African Americans, can have 4 radio stations serving them, why would it not work for Boston to have 1 radio station targeting African Americans?

And before anyone says that Boston doesn't have that many Latino or Hispanic radio stations:
1. WTTT 1150 (SP Religion)
WAMG (890)
WKOX (1430)
and WUNR (1600)

TheRadioKid: You can't assume the black population of Boston is African-American. Most of it is Caribbean-American. And especially Haitian-American. Americans would all be better off if we'd explore deeper than Census color based racial groups created for bureaucratic convenience that tell nothing about the people.

Radio One failed in Boston cause they tried an approach that works in the MidWest, without respect for Boston's diversity.

Meanwhile the Pirates are off the hook in Boston. I've been the Caribbean Carnival in Franklin Park. Big City 101.3 is well represented on the floats and the promotions.

 

[carmen]

Many pirates don't advertise or take advertising dollars

ive never heard a FM pirate that didnt run ads

 

[carmen]

corporate guys come in, snatch them up and stick another translator on the air and rebroadcast the same signal and same content over 7 or 8 different markets

FCC also grenlighted them eating the ability to receive fringe/DX on both sides of their existing signal with new iBiquity Crap - that nobody but Eli's mom listens to. and artificial-scarcity has been done so many times that its boring to even talk about

 

[neo911]

What all these people who keep talking about the limited spectrum and use that excuse to justify the manner in which the FCC has licensed and allocate stations, please explain to me how, in several countries and particularly in Europe, the FM band in major cities is literally crammed with stations, from end to end, broadcasting legally?

Here are some of the reasons:

1) The examples you cite are in countries much smaller geographically than the US, with generally higher population density.

Doesn't matter. The example I listed above were for stations broadcasting *in* specific cities and targeting those cities. The metro area populations of Rome or Athens are not larger than most U.S. metro areas.

2) Not all those stations are privately-owned. Many are government-owned.

Not all are, but most are. For each of the above samples (Rome, Athens, Istanbul) only one frequency corresponded to a government-owned station. The rest are private. And it shouldn't matter anyway. Frequencies are frequencies, and we're talking about the number of frequencies that can operate before planes, supposedly, start falling out of the sky.

3) Most of the stations in Europe run much lower power than US stations, and if I'm not mistaken also use lower frequency deviation, meaning they have smaller bandwidth requirements. In addition, a few countries such as Italy allocate stations using 50kHz spacing instead of the 200kHz used in North America.

I just mentioned that in those cities, the stations are higher-powered, easily running 10-20 kw in most instances (and I'm not talking about ERP). Compare that with 6-7 kw for the stations broadcasting from the Empire State Building, for instance.

4) Trying to listen to FM stations in some large cities in Europe is a nightmare. The stations may all be legal, but they topple over each other due to FM's capture effect, and therefore reception of some stations is unreliable even in what is supposed to be their primary coverage area.

Wrong again. I've traveled to all of those cities, and whether I was listening in the car, on a home receiver, on a walkman, on my phone, etc., I had absolutely no trouble listening to the radio in any of those cities. In fact, I was struck by how clearly they were all received and many with excellent processing, almost all in stereo and almost all with RDS.

5) The frequency allocation schemes in other countries weren't necessarily developed with private businesses in mind, stemming from a time when most broadcast stations in Europe were government-owned and the government could put the stations on whatever frequencies they wanted. In the US the allocation scheme was heavily tilted in favor of private businesses, specifically at keeping frequencies as clear as possible within a reasonable range of the communities the stations are licensed to. (IOW, if the government was going to allocate frequencies to private businesses, it's entirely reasonable for those businesses to be able to stay in business by having a frequency mostly clear of interference from other stations.)

True about the frequency allocations, but in those cities above, 90% of the stations operating right now are privately-owned. They seem to have no trouble doing business under current conditions or covering the entirety of those cities.