This May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back

[Mark_Giardina]

Spitzer’s payola investigation might just spur federal lawmakers to launch a probe of their own into the negative impact deregulation has had on the broadcasting industry.

I’m hoping that instead of levying fines, the Senate and Congress will pass legislation reinstating the rules and regulations that was originally designed to prevent the wholesale takeover of broadcasting by just a few companies in one market.

You can rest assured that these broadcasting giants will have their lobbyist lapdogs out in full force, which is one reason that the average citizen, you and I, have to write our representatives and the FCC and urge them to reconsider the Telecommunications Act of 1996, along with the deregulation that started during the 1980s. Only then will this cycle of corporate greed come to an end.

If Theodore Roosevelt could break up the trusts, let’s see if anyone on Capitol Hill has the guts to take on the media conglomerates.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[dampier]

> Spitzer’s payola investigation might just spur federal
> lawmakers to launch a probe of their own into the negative
> impact deregulation has had on the broadcasting industry.

Are you kidding? Not with the current Congress. Outside of a handful of members from the opposition, who is talking about this story?

> I’m hoping that instead of levying fines, the Senate and
> Congress will pass legislation reinstating the rules and
> regulations that was originally designed to prevent the
> wholesale takeover of broadcasting by just a few companies
> in one market.

Dream on.

> If Theodore Roosevelt could break up the trusts, let’s see
> if anyone on Capitol Hill has the guts to take on the media
> conglomerates.

That would be a "no." Even Clinton was dumb enough to sign into law the 96 Telecom Deregulation Act, something he actually admitted he made a mistake about. Money talks in the telecom industry. The current Congress is absolutely not going to address this issue. We'd be lucky to even see hearings on it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Ch-ch-changes

> The current Congress is absolutely
> not going to address this issue. We'd be lucky to even see
> hearings on it.

The telecommunications issues affected by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are far wider-ranging than broadcast radio. I think that Congress will address a number of issues within the next two years because the growth of digital technologies demands it.

The Republicans in Congress are also likely to want address some issues before the mid-term elections because they can make some political hay with their more conservative base and protect the interests of some of their bigger contributors. Of course, the amount of public outcry regarding the Payola scam will affect how much play it gets in Congress. There has already been significant public outcry regarding the concentration of media and its effect on programming.

Stay tuned.

 

[Bob1370]

Re: Ch-ch-changes

> > The current Congress is absolutely
> > not going to address this issue. We'd be lucky to even
> see
> > hearings on it.

I think you will not see meaningful attention paid to this issue until a new Congress and a new Administration are in place. Depending on who leads the next Administration, you MAY see a revisiting of the Telecommunications Act---and a partial rollback to something a little closer to the stricter ownership rules and more meaningful public service requirements of the 1934 law it replaced.

You're not likely to see a clawback to the 7-market, 21-station national maximum for each broadcast licensee that you had under the old rules, but you COULD see limited divestiture that bars any company from owning stations covering more than 20 or 25 percent of the country, and owning more than 1 TV and 4 or 5 radio stations in any given market.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hearings Are In Progress

Both the house and the senate are deeply involved in studying the effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

As I said, they are looking at a wide array of topics, including reallocation of the electromagnetic spectrum, a number of Internet-related questions, cable issue, and media concentration. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but I think it's safe to say that changes to every area of telecommunications is on the table.

Both House and Senate leaders say that they'd like to get legislation passed this year, and that proposals are due sooner rather than later.

Of course, they are politicians talking, so ANYTHING can happen...

 

[Bob1370]

Re: Hearings Are In Progress

> Both the house and the senate are deeply involved in
> studying the effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

We're in an election year. What's more, we're at a time when popular opinion (which favors re-regulation) is colliding with the interests of the industries who contribute significantly to House and Senate campaigns (in the interests of more de-regulation). Likely result? Posturing, proposals that go nowhere, and promises of future study and future action that won't disturb the status quo until/unless the leadership at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue changes.

 

[wbsu1]

Re-regulation of radio-NEVER

With unlimited numbers of cable channels, with local DIGITAL tv able to broadcast multiple tv channels in the near future, with unlimited numbers of Internet Radio options, cable music options, and sat radio options, there is NO chance that any law reducing radio ownership will happen. Even if congress passed a law, the courts would not uphold it. There is no legal reason to restrict ownership in the future and any lawyer will tell you that ownership will loosen, not tighten. (The NAB is pushing to lift cross ownership regulations).

So what other changes do you guys want? The "KB Radio Must Broadcast Old Jingles and Radio bits" act of 2006? Why is Danny inherantly better than a lib talk station? I don't mean talent, I just mean, better for society? I loved Danny on the radio in the 70's. I used to listen (long distance) and steal his bits. I also loved Peanut Butter and Mayonaisse. Now I don't. My tastes changed. Get the point? Tastes change. The ratings killed KB, not the Entercom suits. It was an idea, they tried it, it didn't work. No amount of promotion would have made it work. And you guys now hate them for trying.

What would re-regulation of radio do? Return to the days of local broadcasters? Bob Savage is a local broadcaster. WDKX is local broadcasters (and the Langston's are having great success). We have a local "jazz" station in Rochester... I mean ALL locally owned.

It seems to me that you all long for the old days with no memory of what they were. Ownership changes every 3 years, cart machines that didn't work, pay checks that bounced, Owners who acted like they rule the roost, groped the women, drank the profits, and sold you out for millions, and moved on???

I think what you guys really want is the chance to get back at the local people running these stations for not hiring you (or firing you) !! That's why you root for Elliot Spitzer in his silly rantings. That's why you root for regulations.

Sorry, but there probably won't be a "Hire former radio guys back into radio so he can stop editing websites for the county" Act of 2006. Maybe it's time to look to the future. A future of HD radio, and multiple channels for each FM station, a future of IPODS, sat radio, downloadable music, DVR for radio (RVR's). Will radio be the same, no. It will be better in some ways, and worse in others.

Most of the regulars on this board "love radio" the way a guy who gets dumped in college loves his ex-girlfriend. By hiding in the bushes, making nasty comments, hoping she's miserable, and WISHING SHE WOULD TAKE YOU BACK.

Get out of the bushes and stop blaming everything you don't like on "Corporate Greed." It's a weak arguement. If these corporations were making so much, the stock prices would be up !!

It's time to get a new girlfriend, and move on.

 

[mike704]

Re: Re-regulation of radio-NEVER

Funny but I didn't see anything about KB in anyones post but yours. Sounds like someone is off their medication.

Radio sucked even before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 it just sucks more now. Yes greed is a part of that. Every station wants to be number one and it takes some experience to realize the best station isn't always the number one station. Yep it's better when stations are locally owned. At least you can talk to the guy that owns the place at the local Chamber of Commerce meeting.

Excuse me but I'm going back to my iPod now for my Current hits, Smooth Jazz and Oldies.

So you love big coperate radio? Get a clue they couldn't car less about you or I.

Mike

 

[raymond_shaw]

Re: Re-regulation of radio-NEVER

> So you love big coperate radio? Get a clue they couldn't car
> less about you or I.

You got that right, Mike!!!

To quote that man who wrote the "Swimming with the Sharks" book(about surviving corporate life): "Dont love the corporation, cause it won't love you back.

 

[LittleRascal]

Re: Re-regulation of radio-NEVER

From the Jim Rome school of "have a take, don't suck!" Rack him!

I didn't agree with most of what you said but I loved the way you said it!


> With unlimited numbers of cable channels, with local DIGITAL
> tv able to broadcast multiple tv channels in the near
> future, with unlimited numbers of Internet Radio options,
> cable music options, and sat radio options, there is NO
> chance that any law reducing radio ownership will happen.
> Even if congress passed a law, the courts would not uphold
> it. There is no legal reason to restrict ownership in the
> future and any lawyer will tell you that ownership will
> loosen, not tighten. (The NAB is pushing to lift cross
> ownership regulations).
>
> So what other changes do you guys want? The "KB Radio Must
> Broadcast Old Jingles and Radio bits" act of 2006? Why is
> Danny inherantly better than a lib talk station? I don't
> mean talent, I just mean, better for society? I loved Danny
> on the radio in the 70's. I used to listen (long distance)
> and steal his bits. I also loved Peanut Butter and
> Mayonaisse. Now I don't. My tastes changed. Get the
> point? Tastes change. The ratings killed KB, not the
> Entercom suits. It was an idea, they tried it, it didn't
> work. No amount of promotion would have made it work. And
> you guys now hate them for trying.
>
> What would re-regulation of radio do? Return to the days of
> local broadcasters? Bob Savage is a local broadcaster.
> WDKX is local broadcasters (and the Langston's are having
> great success). We have a local "jazz" station in
> Rochester... I mean ALL locally owned.
>
> It seems to me that you all long for the old days with no
> memory of what they were. Ownership changes every 3 years,
> cart machines that didn't work, pay checks that bounced,
> Owners who acted like they rule the roost, groped the women,
> drank the profits, and sold you out for millions, and moved
> on???
>
> I think what you guys really want is the chance to get back
> at the local people running these stations for not hiring
> you (or firing you) !! That's why you root for Elliot
> Spitzer in his silly rantings. That's why you root for
> regulations.
>
> Sorry, but there probably won't be a "Hire former radio guys
> back into radio so he can stop editing websites for the
> county" Act of 2006. Maybe it's time to look to the future.
> A future of HD radio, and multiple channels for each FM
> station, a future of IPODS, sat radio, downloadable music,
> DVR for radio (RVR's). Will radio be the same, no. It will
> be better in some ways, and worse in others.
>
> Most of the regulars on this board "love radio" the way a
> guy who gets dumped in college loves his ex-girlfriend. By
> hiding in the bushes, making nasty comments, hoping she's
> miserable, and WISHING SHE WOULD TAKE YOU BACK.
>
> Get out of the bushes and stop blaming everything you don't
> like on "Corporate Greed." It's a weak arguement. If these
> corporations were making so much, the stock prices would be
> up !!
>
> It's time to get a new girlfriend, and move on.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
PETER
www.audioconnell.com
World Wide Voice Over Talent</P>

 

[Bob1370]

Re: Re-regulation of radio-NEVER

> With unlimited numbers of cable channels, with local DIGITAL
> tv able to broadcast multiple tv channels in the near
> future, with unlimited numbers of Internet Radio options,
> cable music options, and sat radio options, there is NO
> chance that any law reducing radio ownership will happen.

You've missed the point. When all of those channels are owned by a tiny number of out-of-town corporations, run from NYC or Philly or San Antonio, there's no real choice and no connection to the community for those channels...and that's one more reason why radio is literally a no-growth industry right now.


> Even if congress passed a law, the courts would not uphold
> it. There is no legal reason to restrict ownership in the
> future and any lawyer will tell you that ownership will
> loosen, not tighten. (The NAB is pushing to lift cross
> ownership regulations).

Baloney. The courts have said repeatedly that Congress has the power, in conjunction with the FCC, to allocate broadcast licenses in any equitable and reasonable way it chooses---and may use concentration of ownership and degree of service to the community and region of license as principal criteria in determining who gets to operate a station. So it's up to Congress and the FCC to decide how to use the power they collectively have.

> So what other changes do you guys want? The "KB Radio Must
> Broadcast Old Jingles and Radio bits" act of 2006? Why is
> Danny inherantly better than a lib talk station? I don't
> mean talent, I just mean, better for society? I loved Danny
> on the radio in the 70's. I used to listen (long distance)
> and steal his bits. I also loved Peanut Butter and
> Mayonaisse. Now I don't. My tastes changed. Get the
> point? Tastes change. The ratings killed KB, not the
> Entercom suits. It was an idea, they tried it, it didn't
> work. No amount of promotion would have made it work. And
> you guys now hate them for trying.

Whaaaaaat?
People are scratching their heads and wondering why Entercom killed a station which not only had potential but made sense strategically for the way it protected the flanks of WBEN...and instead set the stage for in-house competition while at the same time driving enough audience to a rival group (ABC/Citadel) to concede second place in the market to WHTT. It was an incredibly odd BUSINESS decision, and one Entercom is likely to regret.

> What would re-regulation of radio do? Return to the days of
> local broadcasters? Bob Savage is a local broadcaster.
> WDKX is local broadcasters (and the Langston's are having
> great success). We have a local "jazz" station in
> Rochester... I mean ALL locally owned.

And those stations prove the value of local ownership. WDKX in particular is a perpetual top-3 finisher in every Rochester book.

> It seems to me that you all long for the old days with no
> memory of what they were. Ownership changes every 3 years,
> cart machines that didn't work, pay checks that bounced,
> Owners who acted like they rule the roost, groped the women,
> drank the profits, and sold you out for millions, and moved
> on???

What the hell station did YOU work for? My past employers included Meredith Corporation, the old CapCities/ABC, and recent Buffalo Broadcasting Hall of Fame inductee Larry Levite, and they all represented, not the bad side of broadcasting that you recall, but the best side of it, people who cared about the town where they were working and believed quality was what sold best.

> I think what you guys really want is the chance to get back
> at the local people running these stations for not hiring
> you (or firing you) !! That's why you root for Elliot
> Spitzer in his silly rantings. That's why you root for
> regulations.

Huh? I think all we want from Elliot Spitzer is to fight the good fight against payola so we don't end up having to listen to dreck because someone paid for play. It's a practice that's really done radio no good and helped diminish music radio audiences (and, as a result, revenue). Can you really say the business was worse back in the days when record companies had to prove people WANTED to hear the records they were promoting?

> Maybe it's time to look to the future.
> A future of HD radio, and multiple channels for each FM
> station, a future of IPODS, sat radio, downloadable music,
> DVR for radio (RVR's). Will radio be the same, no. It will
> be better in some ways, and worse in others.

And you miss the point that the method of delivery means nothing if it's the same narrow group of people who control all the delivery channels.

> Most of the regulars on this board "love radio" the way a
> guy who gets dumped in college loves his ex-girlfriend. By
> hiding in the bushes, making nasty comments, hoping she's
> miserable, and WISHING SHE WOULD TAKE YOU BACK.

Again, huh? Speaking as someone who makes a nice living from a steady gig in radio as it is today, I've got little or nothing to gain personally from changes that might happen from a broader and more diverse base of owners, managers and personalities fighting harder for listener loyalty. Cynics might even argue that people like me, who make their living from radio now, will face a lot more challenging working life once the competition becomes genuine once again. But I'm not afraid of an environment that would force us all to do our best---that's a chance I'm willing to take for the sake of a better overall industry and a better-served listening public.