Telecommunications Act of 2006!

[Les]

> Your comparison is flawed because the laws of physics apply
> to radio frequencies as being a limited resource. A sewer
> system, if used to capacity, can be rebuilt for more
> capacity. If radio frequencies are used to the maximum
> capacity, you cannot create more of them.

However you CAN reduce bandwidth. Once everybody AM gets down to
CC's 5-kHz B/W you can squeeze the adjacent channel separation a
bit and force-fit a few more stations. Of course they'd be wiped
out by IBOC a little earlier. You can also (and this IS being
done right now) "piggy back" stations on FM. Example: In a few
places subcarriers formerly used for background music services are
being leased out to be programmed with special-purpose or intense
local stuff. Of course the operative word is "lease" and selling
those extras means the "new" stations would just increase
concentration of control. And then there are all the wonderful
new HD-2 "stations". Yeah, I know, not purely stations; not new
frequencies, just more prolific use of what's there.

See, more and more like those municipal sewers every day....
<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>

 

[davideduardo]

>
> However you CAN reduce bandwidth. Once everybody AM gets
> down to
> CC's 5-kHz B/W you can squeeze the adjacent channel
> separation a
> bit and force-fit a few more stations.

Many countries of the world allow 20 kHz separation in the same COL. I owned AMs on 570 and 590 in the same market, and they (sans HD) did not have any trouble at all.

 

[Shawman]

Re: Hate the tracker, not the game

Right on. Ford and GM are hanging by a thread because it was so important that no one lose there job when the technology got better. Now EVERYONE might lose their jobs. Radio is the same... keep the people live and local, even when a VT can do as good or better a job, and artificially inflate the expense line. That will make radio less competitive, and eventually cost everyone at the station their jobs.

 

[Shawman]

> > The FAA should be involved in Air Traffic issues, but not
> > how many flight are offered.
>
> Does that simplistic argument take into account that the
> number of flights offered to and from any specific airport
> is limited by air traffic issues, and therefore the FAA
> does, by regulating the latter, is also indirectly
> regulating the former?
>
> To bring this back on-topic, the parallel is that the FCC,
> by regulating the technical issues that determine how many
> stations can co-exist in a given area without interfering
> with each other, coupled by the relaxed ownership rules, is
> indirectly creating a limit on competition.
>
> I'm not saying the Canadian model is where we should be, but
> shouldn't there be some kind of regulatory control that
> promotes more creative programming?

Why should the government care about "creative programming"? If market "A" can support 10 oldies stations, then so be it.
If market "B" wants 24 hour weather talk, then so be it. The government should never be involved in content decisions, the public does a much better job of letting broadcasters know what is important to them by voting with their wallets.

 

[Shawman]

> > And this public airways argument has to go away. The local
>
> > hobby shop in your town probably uses the public sewer
> > system, so should the local govermenet tell the owner what
>
> > kind of model airplanes it should carry?
>
> Your comparison is flawed because the laws of physics apply
> to radio frequencies as being a limited resource. A sewer
> system, if used to capacity, can be rebuilt for more
> capacity. If radio frequencies are used to the maximum
> capacity, you cannot create more of them.
>

There is a limited number of businesses that can fit on any given road... maybe the government should decide who gets to occupy each building on a given street. "Sorry there is already a restuarant on this road, but we don't have any shoe stores. We'll let you sell soup, but you also must set aside some space in your store for shoes... it's in the public interest."

 

[gr8oldies]

Has anyone ever heard Canadian talk radio? It's the cure for insomnia. No, you can't force anyone to listen to anything they don't want. Wish some of the would-be content regulators on this board would get that.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: If Its Truly Local....

Excellent point...they want a DJ yakking for 4 minutes out of every 60 required by the feds, but unless they're playing the local bar bands,its still not "local".

 

[Ed_Walker]

Re: If Its Truly Local....

> Excellent point...they want a DJ yakking for 4 minutes out
> of every 60 required by the feds, but unless they're playing
> the local bar bands,its still not "local".
>

In all honesty, thats an old Randy Michaels rebuttal to those
screaming "local" not too many years ago. And he was right.

"Oh, so you don't want too much of the hour to be local...in
fact, you don't want the majority of the hour to be local..."

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> Why should the government care about "creative programming"?
> If market "A" can support 10 oldies stations, then so be it.

> If market "B" wants 24 hour weather talk, then so be it. The
> government should never be involved in content decisions,
> the public does a much better job of letting broadcasters
> know what is important to them by voting with their wallets.

This is a "straw man" argument. The FCC has explicitly stated that it won't regulate the formats of radio stations for over thirty years. Yes, even in the most activist and liberal eras at the FCC, they recognized that the way to promote diversity was through diversity of ownership, not through government mandates on formats.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> There is a limited number of businesses that can fit on any
> given road... maybe the government should decide who gets to
> occupy each building on a given street.

Another invalid comparison. More streets are being built all the time, whereas the amount of radio spectrum is fixed. Anyone who lives in an area that is experiencing major urban sprawl knows the difference.

 

[954]

> Why should the government care about "creative programming"?
> If market "A" can support 10 oldies stations, then so be it.

If there are ten oldies stations, than many other formats are
obviously missing.

And the public is not being served.

Which is not to say government should dictate.

I'm just pointing out fallacious reasoning.

73s from 954

 

[954]

> And this public airways argument has to go away. The local
> hobby shop in your town probably uses the public sewer
> system, so should the local govermenet tell the owner what
> kind of model airplanes it should carry?

This is BS, if you'll excuse the pun.

The broadcast spectrum is a limited resource.

Sewer capacity is practically unlimited in the long run.

And what you sell generally doesn't relate to what you
flush in a retail store.

I want to log off for the evening and you people
keep posting ridiculous stuff!!!!!

73s from 954

 

[Shawman]

>
> This is a "straw man" argument. The FCC has explicitly
> stated that it won't regulate the formats of radio stations
> for over thirty years. Yes, even in the most activist and
> liberal eras at the FCC, they recognized that the way to
> promote diversity was through diversity of ownership, not
> through government mandates on formats.

Just responding to the below post:

I'm not saying the Canadian model is where we should be, but shouldn't there be some kind of regulatory control that promotes more creative programming?

And when the government requires "Public Service Programming" they are regulating content.

 

[Shawman]

> > Why should the government care about "creative
> programming"?
> > If market "A" can support 10 oldies stations, then so be
> it.
>
> If there are ten oldies stations, than many other formats
> are
> obviously missing.
>
> And the public is not being served.
>
> Which is not to say government should dictate.
>
> I'm just pointing out fallacious reasoning.
>
> 73s from 954

Who cares what "other formats are missing" if the owners of those Oldies stations are happy with their profits then so be it. If another broadcaster comes to town, buys one of the stations and changes the format to one not being served, so be it. My point is the market, AND ONLY THE MARKET, should dictate content.
>

 

[Shawman]

> > There is a limited number of businesses that can fit on
> any
> > given road... maybe the government should decide who gets
> to
> > occupy each building on a given street.
>
> Another invalid comparison. More streets are being built
> all the time, whereas the amount of radio spectrum is fixed.
> Anyone who lives in an area that is experiencing major
> urban sprawl knows the difference.
>
But location is important in retail, sure they may build another street.. but it may not be as highly traveled as the one I want to put my restuarant on.

Using your counter argument, the internet allows all kinds of programming options. You want Blue Grass in NYC, go to the internet, no reason to put it on the more popular street. (the radio dial).

My point is no one should dictate what kind of business should occupy an open retail space on any road, and no one should dicate what format should or should not exist on the radio dial, except the owner of that signal trying to make a return on his/her investemt.

 

[classicradionut]

You wrote:
> 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.
>
Isn't that kinda unrealistic? This is a catch 22 if you're trying to force stations to be 'local', because while your point may be ending the wall-to-wall voicetracked music sweeps, you fail to understand that such a thing would only play into the hands of satellite and internet broadcasters. Terrestrial radio has to compete, you know. It also has to turn a profit somehow, and requiring a live body broadcasting locally would only serve to lower wages to the floor. Let the marketplace decide if it's economically feasible... Just go to the 10,000 watt FM out in the county with limited ad revenue. You gonna tell the GM he has to have live talent when they don't have the cash to do much more than pay the electric bill?

> (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.
>
My point exactly. Nobody (in radio) likes voice tracking. But the technology's been here for 7 or 8 years now, and the public generally doesn't know the difference unless they know someone in radio who explained it to them. If you make a difference between 'cyber-tracking' and local voice tracking by local jocks then I can make that arguement, otherwise the point is moot.

> 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.
>

21 mhz? Who would listen? They'd need to make a new radio receiver for that, and the hams would go crazy, ME INCLUDED.

> 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.

I'm all for that!

I also like the idea of no damned translators for Calvary Chapel, or any other religious zealot. Translators serve a valid purpose but what a waste to allow every church with a broadcast outlet to flood the airwaves with preachers sticking their hand out asking for a donation. THAT's NOT broadcasting in the public interest! In my humble opinion.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[KMRichards]

The trouble with casting things in stone ...

> > (d) Brokered local programming would be OK. Voice-tracking
> > would not be considered local.
> >
> My point exactly. Nobody (in radio) likes voice tracking.
> But the technology's been here for 7 or 8 years now, and the
> public generally doesn't know the difference unless they
> know someone in radio who explained it to them. If you make
> a difference between 'cyber-tracking' and local voice
> tracking by local jocks then I can make that arguement,
> otherwise the point is moot.

One of my early programming successes, back in 1978 (when everything was analog tape) was at an automated AC station in a smaller market. All the music reels were unannounced and our local staff voicetracked their shows, even though the person on the air was in the building through their entire shift. The reason: We could avoid on-air flubs, we could do a better job preparing for the hourly newscast rather than just rip-and-reading the AP wire, we could do production during our air shifts, etc.

No one then -- and I suspect no one now, were we still there -- thought of us as "non-local". In fact, we sounded more local than a couple of our live competitors.

KOST in Los Angeles has live air personalities who are in the studio for their entire shift, yet they voicetrack in real time, recording their tracks a few minutes before air. The reasoning there is that the air personalities can "get it right" before it goes out on the air. Yet, by the standard set above, that is not local programming.

The OP's position does not take into account that VTing can be good or bad, depending on how a station utilizes the technology.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[peppertree]

In a word...NO!
>
> I'm not saying the Canadian model is where we should be, but
> shouldn't there be some kind of regulatory control that
> promotes more creative programming?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Most cities have less newspapers than radio stations, and they are not regulated.

> Your comparison is flawed because the laws of physics apply
> to radio frequencies as being a limited resource. A sewer
> system, if used to capacity, can be rebuilt for more
> capacity. If radio frequencies are used to the maximum
> capacity, you cannot create more of them.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[classicradionut]

Re: The trouble with casting things in stone ...

> The OP's position does not take into account that VTing can
> be good or bad, depending on how a station utilizes the
> technology.
>

Good point. Plus there are other considerations. When I was on WGKX Memphis a few years ago, back when Barnstable still owned things, I also used to voice track a show on our sister Smooth Jazz station WJZN 98.9. Everything except morning drive was 100% voicetracked. Aside from the fact that they saved big bucks by using airstaff frm the other stations (with different names, of course), can you imagine having to sit through 5 hours of quiet Smooth Jazz music just to talk 5 times an hour? I'd fall asleep. So, in taking 45 minutes to do it right and voicetrack, I got a bit of momentum, the show sounded fresh and I could make sure all the intros were exactly how I wanted them.

For that matter how the hell did anyone ever sit through a live shift at an old Beautiful Music station? Back in the days before computers and the internet?

VT'ing does have a valid place in radio. I don't necessarilly agree with the vt concept on CHR stations... but even there, where a station like Kiss-FM in Jonesboro, AR is playing to a relatively small audience, it's not so bad. After all, the kids are listening for the music and when they want a real personality, they have Ryan Seacrest on weekends. (I believe CCs country station there is mostly live but I'd expect that given demographics).

VT'ing is a tradeoff in many ways between cost and entertainment value but it's a necessary evil in today's world. It's the ABUSE of it that's evil, not the valid use of the technology.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>