Radio's Fear of the future...Why the FCC needs and overhaul

[TheBigA]

I can not Join NAB or my local State Association, as both do not recognize me as being part of the broadcasting industry.

The NAB defines themselves as radio & TV broadcasters. Private groups are allowed to define themselves how they want, and restrict membership to whoever they want. SiriusXM isn't a member either. Neither is Spotify. Why would you want to join the NAB? What would they do for you?

Back to my question: What broadcasting laws are you required to follow?

 

[xloungeradio]

The NAB defines themselves as radio & TV broadcasters. Private groups are allowed to define themselves how they want, and restrict membership to whoever they want. SiriusXM isn't a member either. Neither is Spotify. Why would you want to join the NAB? What would they do for you?

Back to my question: What broadcasting laws are you required to follow?

the only law i have to follow is the DMCA.

I get it, You want to be a gatekeeper.

Why would an industry, like radio, want to do what i do, but then have your little club (NAB) and keep those like me out?

 

[davideduardo]

the only law i have to follow is the DMCA.

And all other rights protection requirements, like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. And legal requirements like zoning, business licenses, sales tax collection or exemption, etc., etc.

I get it, You want to be a gatekeeper.

Wrong. NAB is an association of licensed AM, FM and TV broadcasters and they are specifically mandated by members to help with things like FCC rules, music rights, state legislation that affects broadcast media, etc. They have a specific purpose, and they limit membership to those who would benefit from it.

Why would an industry, like radio, want to do what i do, but then have your little club (NAB) and keep those like me out?

There is no reason, at least yet, today why the NAB would want to represent streaming audio providers when their charter is to work with radio and TV stations that generate RF signals.

The NAB excludes you because they offer no benefit to your line of business.

 

[TheBigA]

the only law i have to follow is the DMCA.

I get it, You want to be a gatekeeper.

Huh? Where do you get that? I don't have a gate to keep.

Why would an industry, like radio, want to do what i do, but then have your little club (NAB) and keep those like me out?

I don't get any of that at all. Technology is available to everyone. Your beef is with the NAB. We all have jobs to do.

 

[xloungeradio]

And all other rights protection requirements, like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. And legal requirements like zoning, business licenses, sales tax collection or exemption, etc., etc.

Wrong. NAB is an association of licensed AM, FM and TV broadcasters and they are specifically mandated by members to help with things like FCC rules, music rights, state legislation that affects broadcast media, etc. They have a specific purpose, and they limit membership to those who would benefit from it.

There is no reason, at least yet, today why the NAB would want to represent streaming audio providers when their charter is to work with radio and TV stations that generate RF signals.

The NAB excludes you because they offer no benefit to your line of business.

Yes at the past 3 years, there have been conferences and seminars about streaming.

If there’s no benefit, why do it??

 

[ted chittenden]

And all other rights protection requirements, like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. And legal requirements like zoning, business licenses, sales tax collection or exemption, etc., etc.

Wrong. NAB is an association of licensed AM, FM and TV broadcasters and they are specifically mandated by members to help with things like FCC rules, music rights, state legislation that affects broadcast media, etc. They have a specific purpose, and they limit membership to those who would benefit from it.

There is no reason, at least yet, today why the NAB would want to represent streaming audio providers when their charter is to work with radio and TV stations that generate RF signals.

The NAB excludes you because they offer no benefit to your line of business.

B

And all other rights protection requirements, like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. And legal requirements like zoning, business licenses, sales tax collection or exemption, etc., etc.

Wrong. NAB is an association of licensed AM, FM and TV broadcasters and they are specifically mandated by members to help with things like FCC rules, music rights, state legislation that affects broadcast media, etc. They have a specific purpose, and they limit membership to those who would benefit from it.

There is no reason, at least yet, today why the NAB would want to represent streaming audio providers when their charter is to work with radio and TV stations that generate RF signals.

The NAB excludes you because they offer no benefit to your line of business.

Beyond DavidEduardo's comments, which I fully support, I will note that over-the-air broadcasters have to live with a whole lot of regulations because of the limitations of frequency spaces available for over-the-air broadcasting. These regulations don't apply to those who who do only digital services simply because available frequencies are not a problem for digital entities.

The one legitimate beef you might have is the willingness of the advertising industry to support solely digital entities like yourself. The biggest reason for that appears to be because digital-only entities such as yourself are (mostly) unable to draw the audience sizes that national advertisers want. Yes, digital entities can bring in more focused demographics, but because the audience size for each individual digital entity is so small, it isn't cost-effective for advertising agencies to pursue the narrower demographics digital entities tend to attract.

 

[TheBigA]

If there’s no benefit, why do it??

That's what I'm asking you:

FYI It costs between $500 to $5000 to become a member of the NAB.

Non-members can attend the annual convention for $1000. Why would you want to spend that kind of money?

 

[xloungeradio]

B


Beyond DavidEduardo's comments, which I fully support, I will note that over-the-air broadcasters have to live with a whole lot of regulations because of the limitations of frequency spaces available for over-the-air broadcasting. These regulations don't apply to those who who do only digital services simply because available frequencies are not a problem for digital entities.

The one legitimate beef you might have is the willingness of the advertising industry to support solely digital entities like yourself. The biggest reason for that appears to be because digital-only entities such as yourself are (mostly) unable to draw the audience sizes that national advertisers want. Yes, digital entities can bring in more focused demographics, but because the audience size for each individual digital entity is so small, it isn't cost-effective for advertising agencies to pursue the narrower demographics digital entities tend to attract.

I haven’t even touched on the advertising side, but you nailed it.

But you also fail to see the point, terrestrial radio wants to jump into streaming and do everything I do but do not acknowledge the pioneers of digital streaming that have brought this new technology forward to the point that anyone with access to Apple CarPlay can tune in from any vehicle, any device.

What benefits would NAB offer me? How about cross platform innovation, the coming availability of providing EAS and Geo advertising?

The willingness of record labels to reach audiences that terrestrial radio doesn’t want.

 

[TheBigA]

But you also fail to see the point, terrestrial radio wants to jump into streaming and do everything I do but do not acknowledge the pioneers of digital streaming that have brought this new technology forward to the point that anyone with access to Apple CarPlay can tune in from any vehicle, any device.

Isn't the point of your article that "radio fears the future??" Radio has been in digital streaming for over 20 years. This isn't a new thing.

People want access to digital streaming because of Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, etc.

The willingness of record labels to reach audiences that terrestrial radio doesn’t want.

All major labels have promotion people who work streaming sites. However, the bulk of their attention is given to Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, and all the rest.

I know indie promo people who specifically work the digital sites exactly because broadcast radio doesn't play their music.

 

[xloungeradio]

Isn't the point of your article that "radio fears the future??" Radio has been in digital streaming for over 20 years. This isn't a new thing.

People want access to digital streaming because of Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, etc.



All major labels have promotion people who work streaming sites. However, the bulk of their attention is given to Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, and all the rest.

I know indie promo people who specifically work the digital sites exactly because broadcast radio doesn't play their music.

I’m a 20+ year industry veteran.

The growth of digital streaming comes from industry veterans like myself who saw the future and embraced it while everyone else gave in and let iheartmedia grow out of control and reduce what you used to be a fun and exciting industry to a majority cookie cutter wasteland with many clusters gone from 24/7 live bodies to maybe 1 person tracking 15 stations across 2 states.

Long gone are the days of a small mom and pop station being the one to break the next viral hit song.

I have faith you actually agree with me deep down somewhere, but your pride stands in the way.

 

[TheBigA]

I have faith you actually agree with me deep down somewhere, but your pride stands in the way.

Once again: HUH? Why so angry? Why lashing out at someone who hasn't criticized you at all?

You want people to agree with you and accept you, yet you're angry, resentful, and attack everyone.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I’m a 20+ year industry veteran.

The growth of digital streaming comes from industry veterans like myself who saw the future and embraced it while everyone else gave in and let iheartmedia grow out of control and reduce what you used to be a fun and exciting industry to a majority cookie cutter wasteland with many clusters gone from 24/7 live bodies to maybe 1 person tracking 15 stations across 2 states.

Ignoring the run-on sentence that took up more than three lines, let me ask you this: By your own description you must have started in the industry somewhere in the early 2000s, else you would have cited a number of years greater than "20+". Streaming was just starting to get a solid foothold then, and I agree with you that there was a future in that. But you must have foreseen that the major players would also get into streaming, so why did you apparently think your much-smaller "footprint" in the streaming world was going to be hugely successful?

I would understand if you created your online station as something other than a business, but in the long run I do not see streaming as anything more than the evolution of the industry overall. To use your own words ...

Long gone are the days of a small mom and pop station being the one to break the next viral hit song.

You are the modern day equivalent of that "small mom and pop station" and the economy of the business means that eventually you will be driven away just as they were. Your complaints about a "cookie cutter wasteland" completely ignores the reality of the advertising side of the business. Revenue is down and the cost-cutting measures you disdain are what keeps more stations from going silent.

So far, that is.

 

[TheBigA]

You are the modern day equivalent of that "small mom and pop station"

Being in LA, you may be familiar with Martini In The Morning. He's been doing the online radio thing for about 20 years. Previously he worked for iHeart in LA. When I think of pioneers, he's who I think of. He's built MITM into a pretty good business. But of course he isn't in the business of breaking new music. He does the complete opposite. But he & his son basically run the thing. They're not a mom & pop, but a father & son.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Being in LA, you may be familiar with Martini In The Morning. He's been doing the online radio thing for about 20 years. Previously he worked for iHeart in LA. When I think of pioneers, he's who I think of. He's built MITM into a pretty good business. But of course he isn't in the business of breaking new music. He does the complete opposite. But he & his son basically run the thing. They're not a mom & pop, but a father & son.

Point well taken about Brad Chambers. But he has no misconceptions about what he is doing, plus he has a low enough overhead for it to at least break even, regardless of ad revenue fluctuations.

But our friend Mr. X specifically cited the ability to "break the viral next song" in his post that I quoted, and as you say, Brad is 180 degrees in the opposite direction in that regard.

And the days of radio "breaking" new music were over before streaming began. The days of local and regional hits were gone before the 1990s. And that was "30+" years ago.

 

[xloungeradio]

Once again: HUH? Why so angry? Why lashing out at someone who hasn't criticized you at all?

You want people to agree with you and accept you, yet you're angry, resentful, and attack everyone.

Did I attack you? I don’t believe I did.

Am I angry? No, you just think I am.

I got into this industry 20 years ago from advice of who told me i had the talent to go places then in a heart beat turn on me to protect themselves when corporate axe started swinging.

At 22 yrs old I became program director of a clear channel station following the departure of the PD who hired and mentored me, but greed and envy from market manger ead to me being denied the bump in pay and title after 9 months in the role, I walked away with my head held high because of what I was able to accomplish, even though all credit for what I did for the format at that time went to the next PD hired.

Could I have sued clear channel? Sure, but I chose not to out of fear of being blacklisted.

 

[TheBigA]

And the days of radio "breaking" new music were over before streaming began. The days of local and regional hits were gone before the 1990s. And that was "30+" years ago.

And the reason has nothing to do with radio and everything to do with the major record labels. They became global conglomerates in the late 80s and early 90s. They work directly with the global streaming sites to achieve their goals. They have more power and money than any radio company.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Am I angry? No, you just think I am.

I don't see it as anger, but I do see it as resentment (albeit justified) toward Clear Channel. But taking it out on us isn't going to change anything.

Especially when you default to those run-on sentences, as you did once again. No one -- inside or outside the business -- thinks very highly of someone whose posts are always formatted that way.

Now, if you want to have a polite discussion, without any anger or resentment, with more reasonable paragraph formatting, I for one would be happy to continue same.

 

[xloungeradio]

Ignoring the run-on sentence that took up more than three lines, let me ask you this: By your own description you must have started in the industry somewhere in the early 2000s, else you would have cited a number of years greater than "20+". Streaming was just starting to get a solid foothold then, and I agree with you that there was a future in that. But you must have foreseen that the major players would also get into streaming, so why did you apparently think your much-smaller "footprint" in the streaming world was going to be hugely successful?

I would understand if you created your online station as something other than a business, but in the long run I do not see streaming as anything more than the evolution of the industry overall. To use your own words ...


You are the modern day equivalent of that "small mom and pop station" and the economy of the business means that eventually you will be driven away just as they were. Your complaints about a "cookie cutter wasteland" completely ignores the reality of the advertising side of the business. Revenue is down and the cost-cutting measures you disdain are what keeps more stations from going silent.

So far, that is.

I started in terrestrial radio around 1997, I remember when mark cuban launched broadcast.com and the early days of streaming from companies like RealAudio.

I dabbled with streaming in 1999 with the original Live365, and eventually working with RealAudio and windows media at the time between stints at various local stations.

I eventually became a pioneer in my area for providing streaming audio and video long before srcurenet and other top players.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Thanks for the background, but you didn't actually answer my question. Why did you think, back in 1997, that running a stream was going to be viable in the long term? You have already said you ran into corporate interference with Clear Channel ... surely you didn't think they'd get into the arena as well.

 

[xloungeradio]

Thanks for the background, but you didn't actually answer my question. Why did you think, back in 1997, that running a stream was going to be viable in the long term? You have already said you ran into corporate interference with Clear Channel ... surely you didn't think they'd get into the arena as well.

At the time, clear channel saw it the same exact way the viewed satellite radio.

They viewed it as a passing fad that wouldn’t catch on, I have the receipts from various articles at the time pissing all over what Sirius and XM would do for broadcasting as a whole.

Hell, even the United States post office laughed at the thought of E-mail and look what American online did for the internet.