-
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
PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES-FCC's COPPS
- Thread starter SUPERCASTER
- Start date
So what do we do, have a vote in the community as to what format every station is going to have? I really question how much people wantg to hear "hometown talent"...you mean to tell me that audiences just can't wait to hear Johnny from down the street crack the mike and they'll listen to Johnny no matter how inexperienced he is? Come on!
Here's how it works:
Johnny from down the street cracks the mic at 12m on WQQQ. Johnny from down the street works 12m-5a for ... a year.
Then
a) Steve from evenings quits WQQQ and Johnny is promoted off graveyards. He sounds good for "the new guy"
--- or ---
b) Johnny goes to work evenings for WFSB. He sounds good for "the new guy".
Repeat.
But wait! WQQQ files 7p-5a with Lia and Blair Garner! So what is Johnny from down the street to do? He comes in off the street and cracks the mic at 5am Monday morning since there is no one to promote to mornings, and can't tell the difference between John Anderson and John Wilkes Booth.
Oops.
If the high schools ceased to sanction football, what would the NFL do for talent?
Johnny from down the street cracks the mic at 12m on WQQQ. Johnny from down the street works 12m-5a for ... a year.
Then
a) Steve from evenings quits WQQQ and Johnny is promoted off graveyards. He sounds good for "the new guy"
--- or ---
b) Johnny goes to work evenings for WFSB. He sounds good for "the new guy".
Repeat.
But wait! WQQQ files 7p-5a with Lia and Blair Garner! So what is Johnny from down the street to do? He comes in off the street and cracks the mic at 5am Monday morning since there is no one to promote to mornings, and can't tell the difference between John Anderson and John Wilkes Booth.
Oops.
If the high schools ceased to sanction football, what would the NFL do for talent?
Fine and dandy...but it never seems to occur to anyone that there's a substantial audience that likes Lia, Delilah and whoever and doesn't want them replaced by Johnny from down the block, and might well listen to them instead of Johnny from down the block if they were head to head.
Radio not developing talent has gone on for a long time, but that's the industry's problem, not the government's to "fix" by mandating that Johnny get his turn on the radio.
Radio not developing talent has gone on for a long time, but that's the industry's problem, not the government's to "fix" by mandating that Johnny get his turn on the radio.
B
buttonpuncher
Guest
One major problem is as I see it is many stations have been taken over by bankers and suits who’s main concern is how much money can they extract from a community.
They, in-effect, have stolen the public airwaves from the citizens and turned them into a money machine for their benefit, and have no civic concern other than the lip service they give in order to add some additional appeal to garner more listeners.
They, in-effect, have stolen the public airwaves from the citizens and turned them into a money machine for their benefit, and have no civic concern other than the lip service they give in order to add some additional appeal to garner more listeners.
I know how we all want to think that owners in the "good old days" were selfless, and ..sniff..only wanted to provide a good swap shop show for the townsfolks. It was about money then as well as now. It may have been the local insurance agent or car dealer who owned the station, but it wasn't the local hobbyist who had a few huindred thousand to have fun with.
B
buttonpuncher
Guest
I realize we can't go back to the old days. It's just sad to see how priorities have shifted so far towards the money side of the business, the music and programming are often the thing that gets the least amount of attention, often only when the consultant breezes through town.
Many stations here have their mx library on the automation system and there's very little, if any, attention given to updating it, or the rotation software, they just schedule and print logs day after day after day.
They survive on the scarcity of choice of stations.
Many stations here have their mx library on the automation system and there's very little, if any, attention given to updating it, or the rotation software, they just schedule and print logs day after day after day.
They survive on the scarcity of choice of stations.
buttonpuncher said:
Too often "we can't go back" is used by defenders of the status quo to explain why that status quo shouldn't be changed. Yeah, I know that we're not going back to the days of 7/7/7 (ownership limits: 7 each of AM, FM, and TV stations) -- but that doesn't mean that we should accept the status quo of one company owning 1000+ stations across the country, and up to 8 in a local market.
Whether driven by market forces or reregulation, I have a suspicion that we will see some deconsolidation in the course of the next decade.
i was wondering are any secrets deals made between two companies to sale off a station that the other operator dosn't quite own yet to sale to another company. in austin, tx there's a rumor going around that entercom which has'nt close on the stations it about to aquire from cbs to sale one of those stations to univision. i haven't seen any notices about this anywhere (radio media sites, fcc or the companies that owns these stations). i do believe that radio has to be deconsolidate again, t radio contest's are going awry, music is so bland. maybe 20 or 50 station count for radio, am/ fm equal (10 or 25), tv maybe 10-20 nationwide and be really tough on these bankers, investors, larger companies.
Not So Secret
A "secret deal" isn't necessary for one company to purchase stations, then resell one or more of them to another company. It's not only common, but required where a company with existing stations in a market buys a cluster from another company - like Entercom purchasing a bunch of stations in several markets from CBS/Infinity - then spinning off some of the stations in some of the markets to get under FCC ownership caps. That's happening in Rochester, NY. A company may also decide to spin off a station that's successful in a format that they're not strong in - like a foreign language format - to a company who is willing to pay big $$$ for that station.
A "secret deal" isn't necessary for one company to purchase stations, then resell one or more of them to another company. It's not only common, but required where a company with existing stations in a market buys a cluster from another company - like Entercom purchasing a bunch of stations in several markets from CBS/Infinity - then spinning off some of the stations in some of the markets to get under FCC ownership caps. That's happening in Rochester, NY. A company may also decide to spin off a station that's successful in a format that they're not strong in - like a foreign language format - to a company who is willing to pay big $$$ for that station.
TheRover said:
better yet, the BIG MEGA CORPORATIONS RUN THE FCC! and, the FCC is now a branch of the IRS!
And we all know how fond BIG MEGA-CORPORATIONS are of the IRS...
Isn't it interesting that the company that spearheaded the effort for greater media consolidation - Clear Channel - is now divesting the small markets where they had the greatest amount of media consolidation?
BTW, it was the Communications Act of 1996 - passed by both Congress and the Clinton Administration - that set the limits for broadcast consolidation. The FCC in 2003 reviewed the current regulations and proposed relatively minor changes in TV ownership (click here for more), which were never enacted due to opposition from a number of groups on both sides of the aisle.
Let's put political posturing aside for a moment. The FCC is obliged to review media ownership rules ever two years under the terms of the Communications Act of 1996, and that is the reason for the current spate of public hearings on consolidation. It has nothing to do with Congress or any political party's agenda. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of political posturing going on since there are public forums involved.
Isn't it interesting that the company that spearheaded the effort for greater media consolidation - Clear Channel - is now divesting the small markets where they had the greatest amount of media consolidation?
BTW, it was the Communications Act of 1996 - passed by both Congress and the Clinton Administration - that set the limits for broadcast consolidation. The FCC in 2003 reviewed the current regulations and proposed relatively minor changes in TV ownership (click here for more), which were never enacted due to opposition from a number of groups on both sides of the aisle.
Let's put political posturing aside for a moment. The FCC is obliged to review media ownership rules ever two years under the terms of the Communications Act of 1996, and that is the reason for the current spate of public hearings on consolidation. It has nothing to do with Congress or any political party's agenda. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of political posturing going on since there are public forums involved.
SirRoxalot said:
The FCC has been actively increasing the amount of dollars it takes in every year from broadcasters and commercial applicants. This money goes directly to the general fund, NOT the FCC itself, which is not helping the staffing issues on 12th ST NW or any of the field bureaus I'm sure.
As for the "cc spinoff" argument, the main reason why CC (and other) big media co's are getting away from small town (100+) markets is because there's not enough profit margin anymore! Anyone out there that's thinks CC is doing us all a favor to lower their ownership caps is only kidding themselves. These guys have very deep pockets and enough lobbyists to cover themselves and get around % laws, etc.,. This is the climate that the FCC has allowed to foster and been very damaging and criminal in my view. These companies are only looking to better themselves at the EXPENSE of good broadcasting and good radio, NOT by covering their assigned COL's (City of License) and I could go on and on.
It really all gets back to what is or is not good for radio broadcasting and the public. I find it extremely difficult to fathom that radio has gotten "better" over the last 10 years. You quoted the 1996 Act and I just don't see or hear better TV or radio today. I think it's actually quite the opposite. I can tell you a lot of good people have been displaced at the same time, only for the one thing; Greed, through consolidation. Will CC now re-hire all those it cut loose in those markets it's now "divesting" itself from and restore the radio landscape it raped on the way to becoming the #1 Radio property owner in America today? I doubt it....
D
dbdigital
Guest
What grills my cheese is the total disconnect of the FCC's policy debates verses its business decisions.
The commissioners go on this protracted localism road show and talk earnestly about the need for community radio AFTER the agency gives away FM spectrum to translators effectively eliminating LPFM, including LP-10 service, for many areas of the country. When the FCC released it's rulings on HD-Radio last month they could have mandated that some of these extra channels be used for community radio but declined to do so.
Yesterday Commissioner Adlestein lamented that minorities and women own few broadcast properties just as Clear Channel is busy giving itself an "en-ama"(sic) and dumping out its small market, low performing properties and selling them to the highest bidders, all with minimum FCC interference. Looking at some of the applications for these properties I can tell you that none I've seen so far are going to women or minorities (unless you believe the population projections in which case white males will be a minority in a few years).
Frankly I'm tired of all this earnest talk, it's time for the FCC and its commissioners to either 'put up or shut up'.
db
The commissioners go on this protracted localism road show and talk earnestly about the need for community radio AFTER the agency gives away FM spectrum to translators effectively eliminating LPFM, including LP-10 service, for many areas of the country. When the FCC released it's rulings on HD-Radio last month they could have mandated that some of these extra channels be used for community radio but declined to do so.
Yesterday Commissioner Adlestein lamented that minorities and women own few broadcast properties just as Clear Channel is busy giving itself an "en-ama"(sic) and dumping out its small market, low performing properties and selling them to the highest bidders, all with minimum FCC interference. Looking at some of the applications for these properties I can tell you that none I've seen so far are going to women or minorities (unless you believe the population projections in which case white males will be a minority in a few years).
Frankly I'm tired of all this earnest talk, it's time for the FCC and its commissioners to either 'put up or shut up'.
db
The one thing to consider is that the FCC is an agency managed mostly by lawyers and political appointees. However, Congress has a hand in directing the results that they like.
In recent decades radio has been a good source of investment for politicians, and a revenue generation device for both licensees and people selling services to stations.
One need only watch how fast something gets passed, approved, or relicensed ... and looking at who the players are to understand the dynamics involved.
The part that angers me the most is the utter contempt that the agency, and politicians, have for the small businessman.
In recent decades radio has been a good source of investment for politicians, and a revenue generation device for both licensees and people selling services to stations.
One need only watch how fast something gets passed, approved, or relicensed ... and looking at who the players are to understand the dynamics involved.
The part that angers me the most is the utter contempt that the agency, and politicians, have for the small businessman.
- Status