Telecommunications Act of 2006!

[allisonmarie]

What would all of you like to see in the coming rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996? The Senate Commerce Committee is going to hold a series of 15 hearings on the subject!

Senator Russ Feingold today asked Committee Chairman Ted Stevens from Alaska to hold a separate hearing on the subject of payola.

Might we all like to see some changes in the ownership limits, such as no limits at all? (Just kidding!)How about some changes to the FM Bands capacity by extending the band down to what is now used by channel 6, and the elimination of the educational only use of 88.1 to 91.9? What about some new power limits for the different classes of FM Stations?

How about some limits on the exploding number of translators?

More power for LPFM or the authorization of LPAM stations?

Are you all ready to give your ideas on that to your own senators? Don't wait until its too late this time! This should be a very interesting process.

 

[jcolletta275]

J.C.'s Wish List for the Telecommunications Act of 2006:

- Add two classes of LPAM licenses: 10 and 50 watts. Both, of course, may be subject to directional and nighttime limitations.

- Allow commercial broadcasting on LP stations (both bands) while restricting ownership and operation of such stations to owners and operators who operate only within the market in which the station is located (preventing Clear Channel, CBS Radio, etc. from buying and/or operating LP stations altogether).

- Outlaw iBiquity's digital system on both bands.

- Add protection for existing Class D FM licenses (thereby preventing another situation like the one WAVM is in now).

- Begin to more heavily enforce spacing rules.

- Return ownership limits to pre-1996 rules.<P ID="signature">______________
The Radio Blog: regular updates are a good thing.
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>

 

[radiophile]

Come up with sensible definitions of what is a "market" and how to count radio stations in a market to determine ownership limits.

Allow newspapers to co-own AM stations in their markets, perhaps as many as four if the market has enough AM stations to maintain diversity. The synergies possible between radio and newspaper for radio news coverage are too substantial to prohibit, especially when news on radio has, for all practical purposes, disappeared in some markets.

Figure out some way to unclutter the AM band by signing off some stations.

The following three are long shots: Investigate some of the questionable situations already existing where a company owns too many stations in a market, and require the company to divest of the "excess" stations within one year.

Require some real public service from stations.

Make it a requirement that, if a company owns more than one FM in a market, there has to be a 24/7/365 live body in studio for at least one of those stations.

 

[KeithE]

> What would all of you like to see in the coming rewrite of
> the Telecommunications Act of 1996? The Senate Commerce
> Committee is going to hold a series of 15 hearings on the
> subject!

1. Eliminate all FM translators and boosters except those that fill coverage "holes" in a station's market due to hilly terrain, tall buildings, physically large market size, etc. Bye-bye Cavalry Chapel and their ilk!

2. Reallocate TV channels 2 thru 6 as follows:
Ch. 2 (54-60 MHz) - Amateur Radio
Chs. 3-4 (60-72 MHz) - Public-safety & commercial two-way radio
Ch. 5 (76-82 MHz) - Low-powered FM
Ch. 6 (82-88 MHz) - Non-commercial FM
Open 88-92 MHz to commercial stations

3. Local programming requirements would be as follows:

(a) All Class A & B AM stations, and all FM stations, would be required to carry at least 6 hours of local programming weekdays and 3 hours weekends between the hours of 6 AM and 12 Midnight.

(b) All Class C stations & Class D's running 1000 watts or more (daytime) would be required to carry 3 or more hours weekdays local with no weekend restrictions.

(c) No restrictions on Class D stations with powers under 1000 watts.

(d) Brokered local programming would be OK. Voice-tracking would not be considered local.

4. Authorize a Class E AM service (LPAM) with a power of 10 watts or less into a 15 meter antenna. Commercial operation would be permitted.

5. No infomercials (radio or TV) except between midnight and 6 AM on weekdays and 10 PM to 6 AM on weekends. The difference between brokered programming and informercials would be clearly defined.

 

[Shawman]

> Come up with sensible definitions of what is a "market" and
> how to count radio stations in a market to determine
> ownership limits.
>
> Allow newspapers to co-own AM stations in their markets,
> perhaps as many as four if the market has enough AM stations
> to maintain diversity. The synergies possible between radio
> and newspaper for radio news coverage are too substantial to
> prohibit, especially when news on radio has, for all
> practical purposes, disappeared in some markets.
>
> Figure out some way to unclutter the AM band by signing off
> some stations.
>
> The following three are long shots: Investigate some of the
> questionable situations already existing where a company
> owns too many stations in a market, and require the company
> to divest of the "excess" stations within one year.
>
> Require some real public service from stations.

If you are forceing "real public service" and Local programming as mention in a previous post, then you better force people to listen to the stations as well. When can we get past this "in the public interest crap" and let the market decide how much local and public service we do. The days of people needing radio to feed them local news, info and community affairs programs are long over. The internet, and local community papers do a great job, and if there are ratings to be gained by interviewing the local city counsilman, someone will do it.

Alow radio owners to do whatever it takes to be profitable, and gain as many listeners as possible so we can compete against our numerous competitors. Or impose the same limiting rules on Sirius and XM. Limit them to how many channels they can have, force them to carry community service programs on each channel, and hold them to the same obscenity laws.
>
> Make it a requirement that, if a company owns more than one
> FM in a market, there has to be a 24/7/365 live body in
> studio for at least one of those stations.
>

 

[954]

1. Drastic limitations on ownership:
No more than one AM and one FM in any market.

2. Redefine market.

3. Stations should have some identification with
the COL rather than the market as a whole. At least
part of station's public service should relate
specifically to COL.

4. Studios must be in the COL or within a reasonable
distance, and always in the same county.

> If you are forceing "real public service" and Local
> programming as mention in a previous post, then you better
> force people to listen to the stations as well. When can we

Given the choice between listening to Madonna
and listening to the Mayor, Madonna will win
every time. So why not eliminate all news and
all local content from radio and TV.

Clear Channel could VT pop and rock and urban
pabulum content all over the country on all
their channels -- and no local employees
would be required except some geek old
fogey to sweep the floor and maintain the
transmitter.

Without public service and local content,
radio is no better than CDs.

73s from 954

 

[flip_flop_fly]

> If you are forceing "real public service" and Local
> programming as mention in a previous post, then you better
> force people to listen to the stations as well. When can we
> get past this "in the public interest crap" and let the
> market decide how much local and public service we do. The
> days of people needing radio to feed them local news, info
> and community affairs programs are long over. The internet,
> and local community papers do a great job, and if there are
> ratings to be gained by interviewing the local city
> counsilman, someone will do it.
>
> Alow radio owners to do whatever it takes to be profitable,
> and gain as many listeners as possible so we can compete
> against our numerous competitors. Or impose the same
> limiting rules on Sirius and XM. Limit them to how many
> channels they can have, force them to carry community
> service programs on each channel, and hold them to the same
> obscenity laws.

Just in case you forgot, while the studios, towers, and transmitters used might belong to privately-held broadcast companies, the airwaves which are used to deliver product still belong to the public. As such, broadcasters should have to do some work that is truly in the interest of the public they claim to serve.

Perhaps you refer to public service progamming as "crap" because broadcasters have always been allowed to present poorly produced programming, buried in timeslots when no one listens, as "public service". Anything made like crap and treated like crap, is, in the end, crap.

But why do "public service" and "profit margin" have to be opposable terms?

Maybe if broadcasters had to present more public service, during hours when people actually listen, the almighty market forces that you place singular faith in, might force broadcasters to come up with programming that has its focus on the individual markets it serves, something thought provoking and, dare I say, original, maybe even entertaining. I know that "thought provoking", "original", and "entertaining" aren't terms that can very often be applied to radio programming these days.

I believe the current deregulated state of radio has conditioned listeners to expect less from the medium, not more. As a result, it has become a less important part of their lives than it once was. Satellite, TV, and the internet aren't the cause for many of the problems radio faces today - radio is. Chief among those problems is the "keep your snout in the trough, damn the public interest, lowest common denominator" attitude that is the hallmark of the corporate megacasters that dominate America's public airwaves.

Perhaps, if they were finally forced to realize that they have a responsibility, not merely to their own bottom line, but to the members of the community that grant them the right to make money via the airwaves, "public interest" on the radio will no longer be a pseudonym for "crap". <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by flip_flop_fly on 02/11/06 01:28 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[peppertree]

Something I would like is for the noncommercial section of FM to be freed up.

1. Permit regular commercial broadcast on FM below 92. Allow current stations to sell to a commercial operator.

2. Give all license holders on noncommercial FM, an AM license on a frequency between 1610 and 1700 AM.

I will not be holding my breath.


> What would all of you like to see in the coming rewrite of
> the Telecommunications Act of 1996? The Senate Commerce
> Committee is going to hold a series of 15 hearings on the
> subject!
>
> Senator Russ Feingold today asked Committee Chairman Ted
> Stevens from Alaska to hold a separate hearing on the
> subject of payola.
>
> Might we all like to see some changes in the ownership
> limits, such as no limits at all? (Just kidding!)How about
> some changes to the FM Bands capacity by extending the band
> down to what is now used by channel 6, and the elimination
> of the educational only use of 88.1 to 91.9? What about some
> new power limits for the different classes of FM Stations?
>
> How about some limits on the exploding number of
> translators?
>
> More power for LPFM or the authorization of LPAM stations?
>
> Are you all ready to give your ideas on that to your own
> senators? Don't wait until its too late this time! This
> should be a very interesting process.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

You are right. It is a bunch of unfortunate Socialism that crept into the fabric of our society, thanks to a certain President whose face is on our dimes.

It may be a fact, but that does not mean that it is good or right.

If the airwaves belong to the "public," than I would like to sell my share. I am a US citizen and part of the public, and I choose to opt out.

> Just in case you forgot, while the studios, towers, and
> transmitters used might belong to privately-held broadcast
> companies, the airwaves which are used to deliver product
> still belong to the public. As such, broadcasters should
> have to do some work that is truly in the interest of the
> public they claim to serve.
>
> Perhaps you refer to public service progamming as "crap"
> because broadcasters have always been allowed to present
> poorly produced programming, buried in timeslots when no one
> listens, as "public service". Anything made like crap and
> treated like crap, is, in the end, crap.
>
> But why do "public service" and "profit margin" have to be
> opposable terms?
>
> Maybe if broadcasters had to present more public service,
> during hours when people actually listen, the almighty
> market forces that you place singular faith in, might force
> broadcasters to come up with programming that has its focus
> on the individual markets it serves, something thought
> provoking and, dare I say, original, maybe even
> entertaining. I know that "thought provoking", "original",
> and "entertaining" aren't terms that can very often be
> applied to radio programming these days.
>
> I believe the current deregulated state of radio has
> conditioned listeners to expect less from the medium, not
> more. As a result, it has become a less important part of
> their lives than it once was. Satellite, TV, and the
> internet aren't the cause for many of the problems radio
> faces today - radio is. Chief among those problems is the
> "keep your snout in the trough, damn the public interest,
> lowest common denominator" attitude that is the hallmark of
> the corporate megacasters that dominate America's public
> airwaves.
>
> Perhaps, if they were finally forced to realize that they
> have a responsibility, not merely to their own bottom line,
> but to the members of the community that grant them the
> right to make money via the airwaves, "public interest" on
> the radio will no longer be a pseudonym for "crap".
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[954]

World's Largest Scam

> You are right. It is a bunch of unfortunate Socialism that
> crept into the fabric of our society, thanks to a certain
> President whose face is on our dimes.

You got THAT right!

> It may be a fact, but that does not mean that it is good or
> right.
> If the airwaves belong to the "public," than I would like to
> sell my share. I am a US citizen and part of the public,
> and I choose to opt out.

The biggest Ponzi scam in the history of the
world is taking a bite out of every paycheck
(as it has since before we were born) and
you're worrying about your 1/300,000,000th
share of Clear Channel?

First things first, man!

 

[flip_flop_fly]

> You are right. It is a bunch of unfortunate Socialism that
> crept into the fabric of our society, thanks to a certain
> President whose face is on our dimes.
>
> It may be a fact, but that does not mean that it is good or
> right.
>
> If the airwaves belong to the "public," than I would like to
> sell my share. I am a US citizen and part of the public,
> and I choose to opt out.

Well, I think that it is good and right. But neither your opinion, nor mine, is what is at issue here. The fact remains, whether you like it or not, that the airwaves belong to the public, and broadcasters are going to have to remember that, whether they like it or not.

And if they don't like it, they can either stay in the business, and acknowledge it begrudgingly, or they can opt out of the process altogether.

Perhaps you don't mind whoring your share of the public interest out to soulless monoliths like Viacom and Clear Channel, but I do. By all means, relinquish your share. We'll all be better off when you do.

It's pathetic, really, when the simple minded must construe any attempt to safeguard the public interest as "socialism".

Hell, while we give the airwaves to the broadcast companies, let's maintain momentum...

The FAA? Who the hell needs them? If you buy an airline ticket, it's your responsibility to inspect the plane and its maintainance records before getting onboard. Air traffic control? Market forces. If the number of passengers dying in mid-air collisions scares enough passengers away from the airlines, the airlines will work something out. Supply and demand, my friend.

The FDA? Hey, pal, if you decide to put something in your mouth, it's not government's job to be sure it is safely produced.

The VA? What are you bitching about? You got fed and clothed while you risked getting your *ss shot off. Medical attention? Get yourself some damned insurance!

OSHA?! Where are those f*cking socialist bastards?! Safety costs money, and that can't be allowed to continue.

Hey, this is beginning to feel pretty good. I've got mine, f*ck everyone else. Yeah, I like it.

 

[davideduardo]

>
> 4. Studios must be in the COL or within a reasonable
> distance, and always in the same county.

That is absurd. Many of the smallest radio stations, the ones that make nearly no money, are quartered at the transmitter site. Often this is not in the COL, and can frequently be in a different county... county lines are not a definition of a community, and thousands of US towns and cities straddle county lines.
>
> > If you are forceing "real public service" and Local
> > programming as mention in a previous post, then you better
>
> > force people to listen to the stations as well. When can
> we
>
> Given the choice between listening to Madonna
> and listening to the Mayor, Madonna will win
> every time. So why not eliminate all news and
> all local content from radio and TV.

There are listeners for this programming, but not everyone wants news all the time and on every station. Stations that provide a nice blend of music are serving listeners, too.

> Clear Channel could VT pop and rock and urban
> pabulum content all over the country on all
> their channels -- and no local employees
> would be required except some geek old
> fogey to sweep the floor and maintain the
> transmitter.

Except that Clear Channel knows that the music mix that will win in each market is locally produced and researched and programmed.
>
> Without public service and local content,
> radio is no better than CDs.

Most people do not want public affairs and could care less where the studio is. ratings and research over the last 4 or 5 decades have proven this amply. Do you really think that in this era of iPods and music on demand that anyone will sit through a public affairs show they don't want to listen to?

There will always be a segment that wants news and discussion. If they are numberous enough, a station will serve them. If not, there is no loss as nobody would ahve listened anyway.

 

[PSAIRCHECKS]

> > You are right. It is a bunch of unfortunate Socialism
> that
> > crept into the fabric of our society, thanks to a certain
> > President whose face is on our dimes.
> >
> > It may be a fact, but that does not mean that it is good
> or
> > right.
> >
> > If the airwaves belong to the "public," than I would like
> to
> > sell my share. I am a US citizen and part of the public,
> > and I choose to opt out.
>
> Well, I think that it is good and right. But neither your
> opinion, nor mine, is what is at issue here. The fact
> remains, whether you like it or not, that the airwaves
> belong to the public, and broadcasters are going to have to
> remember that, whether they like it or not.
>
> And if they don't like it, they can either stay in the
> business, and acknowledge it begrudgingly, or they can opt
> out of the process altogether.
>
> Perhaps you don't mind whoring your share of the public
> interest out to soulless monoliths like Viacom and Clear
> Channel, but I do. By all means, relinquish your share.
> We'll all be better off when you do.
>
> It's pathetic, really, when the simple minded must construe
> any attempt to safeguard the public interest as "socialism".
>
>
> Hell, while we give the airwaves to the broadcast companies,
> let's maintain momentum...
>
> The FAA? Who the hell needs them? If you buy an airline
> ticket, it's your responsibility to inspect the plane and
> its maintainance records before getting onboard. Air traffic
> control? Market forces. If the number of passengers dying in
> mid-air collisions scares enough passengers away from the
> airlines, the airlines will work something out. Supply and
> demand, my friend.
>
> The FDA? Hey, pal, if you decide to put something in your
> mouth, it's not government's job to be sure it is safely
> produced.
>
> The VA? What are you bitching about? You got fed and clothed
> while you risked getting your *ss shot off. Medical
> attention? Get yourself some damned insurance!
>
> OSHA?! Where are those f*cking socialist bastards?! Safety
> costs money, and that can't be allowed to continue.
>
> Hey, this is beginning to feel pretty good. I've got mine,
> f*ck everyone else. Yeah, I like it.
>
I was trying to figure out a way to respond to this post without going completely out of my mind trying to think of all the things you thought of...thanks for speaking so eloquently. Nice job!<P ID="signature">______________
The great FDR...Truly one of the finest Presidents in American history.</P>

 

[RockManAC]

> (d) Brokered local programming would be OK. Voice-tracking
> would not be considered local.

Why would voice-tracking not be local? Voice tracks can be done in-house, you know, not just from some station 1000 miles away.

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[SquiggyFM]

> Ch. 5 (76-82 MHz) - Low-powered FM
> Ch. 6 (82-88 MHz) - Non-commercial FM


Ok, and on what magical radio would the supporters of these stations listen on? Keep in mind that no one (in the US) has a radio for this option.

 

[KeithE]

> > Ch. 5 (76-82 MHz) - Low-powered FM
> > Ch. 6 (82-88 MHz) - Non-commercial FM
>
>
> Ok, and on what magical radio would the supporters of these
> stations listen on? Keep in mind that no one (in the US)
> has a radio for this option.

That's mostly true. Radios with VHF-TV capability can already tune there, but those are a minority. It would be a fairly simple matter to extend the tuning range of other FM radios, mainly because the asian FM band goes down to 76 MHz. Circuits and tuner chipsets already exist that can tune down there so it would be a matter of altering the designs somewhat to make them tune all the way from 76 to 108 MHz, if they don't already.

Remember, when the AM band was extended to 1700 kHz, there weren't any consumer-grade receivers that could tune above 1600. I think radios that could tune to 1700 were available before any expanded-band stations came on the air, though. That would have to happen with an expanded FM band as well.

 

[KeithE]

> > (d) Brokered local programming would be OK. Voice-tracking
> > would not be considered local.
>
> Why would voice-tracking not be local? Voice tracks can be
> done in-house, you know, not just from some station 1000
> miles away.
>
> -A

I should have been more specific. When I said "local," I meant "live and local." Of course voice-tracking can be done in-house but by definition it isn't live.

 

[Les]

> > Ch. 5 (76-82 MHz) - Low-powered FM
> > Ch. 6 (82-88 MHz) - Non-commercial FM
>
>
> Ok, and on what magical radio would the supporters of these
> stations listen on? Keep in mind that no one (in the US)
> has a radio for this option.

Simple solution:

Mandate that ALL "networked" religious broadcasters move to those channels, especially the thousands of translators. Then, re-assign their present channels to commercial and non-commercial locally-oriented broadcasters. Outlaw any group holding more than, say, two licenses anywhere from the freed-up channels.

That'd rush availability of radios that would tune those channels! The already converted would not only rush out to buy them at any price, but would mount fund-raisers to buy radios for those not fortunate enough to have the money to "hear the word".
<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>

 

[N_D_Radioguy]

Re: Hate the tracker, not the game

> I should have been more specific. When I said "local," I
> meant "live and local." Of course voice-tracking can be
> done in-house but by definition it isn't live.
>

That's still bull-crap.

It doesn't have to be live to be good. It doesn't have to be live to connect with listeners. Frankly, it doesn't HAVE to be local to do those things either, but that's another windwill for tilting altogether.

We have two different people who track full-time shifts that are still physically in the building for the entire time the shift runs. They can make changes, update weather, handle breaking news if any of that is necessary. Just because they aren't breathing the poorly-recycled air in the studio, they're not doing less for their listeners than someone who is "live."

And before the "so someone is there to answer the phone" argument ensues... Fewer than 3% of listeners ever actually call the station and 99% of your phone calls come from 1% of your listeners.

I'm sorry that voicetracking is [obviously] being done poorly where you are. The answer, however, is not to make it harder on trackers; it's to get better trackers. To track well takes the same level of preparation, ability and energy as being live. If your trackers don't SOUND live, then they are doing it wrong.

As for the whole "lost jobs" song and dance, I have never seen voicetracking cost the job of anyone who was up to snuff in terms of both technology and talent. The people who have been pushed out usually didn't belong there in the first place. The ones good enough to stay in radio -- and who WANT it -- always find gigs elsewhere...maybe not as cushy as the gigs they had before, but even the worst radio gig is still better and easier than a REAL job.

 

[gr8oldies]

I agree with point number one. As for point number two, define "local". A DJ sitting in a chair in the city of license talking? For how many minutes an hour and about what? Does that mean a jockless Jack station has to hire a DJ and have him or her talk for a minimum number of minutes per hour? So what if I have the receptionist run back to the studio and read the weather live twice an hour for the six hours then go back to automation? Remember, legal definitions have to be precise.