• 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

WaPo Piece on Brendan Carr

AbrahamJSimpson said:
If “Broadcast licenses are not sacred cows” is not a clear enough signal of what’s coming, I’m not sure anything can help.

We’ve seen this blueprint many times before in any number of countries.
Click to expand...

The people voted for change. That's what they say they want. They say they want to drain the swamp. Guess where the FCC is based. In the swamp. If the new government wants to give the people change, that should mean LESS intrusion by the FCC. But that's not what he's saying. He's actually saying MORE intrusion. This is more of an agenda-driven FCC, coming from the white house, rather than cutting the size of government.

If licenses are not sacred cows, then the companies that hold them are less interested in investing in them. Why invest money in a license that could be taken away based on someone's interpretation of public interest?
 
TheBigA said:
The people voted for change. That's what they say they want. They say they want to drain the swamp. Guess where the FCC is based. In the swamp. If the new government wants to give the people change, that should mean LESS intrusion by the FCC. But that's not what he's saying. He's actually saying MORE intrusion. This is more of an agenda-driven FCC, coming from the white house, rather than cutting the size of government.
Click to expand...
Wait, how could the incoming administration possibly be considering doing something other than what they said they would.

Why, next you’ll tell me all that supposed disavowing of project 1933, er, I mean, 2025, wasn’t honest.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
Wait, how could the incoming administration possibly be considering doing something other than what they said they would.
Click to expand...

They said conflicting things that even they don't all agree on. That's why Carr says he waiting for guidance from the transition team before doing anything. He's not taking his orders from congress or the public. In 2016, that administration took the internet away from the FCC and moved it to Commerce. Carr is waiting to be told how much of the internet he can oversee. A lot of what we hear in these interviews are part of his audition to the white house for what his responsibilities will cover. We really won't know that until they replace the exiting chairman, and are back at 5 commissioners.
 
Although George Soros is certainly a controversial figure I think the real controversy here is that his group sought and received an expedited approvals process that others have not/would not have received. If there is any legal basis to challenge his acquisition I think it would have to be that.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Although George Soros is certainly a controversial figure I think the real controversy here is that his group sought and received an expedited approvals process that others have not/would not have received. If there is any legal basis to challenge his acquisition I think it would have to be that.
Click to expand...

But as we have said, Cumulus and iHeart received the same treatment, and all three took the same amount of time. Audacy was submitted in February, and approved in October. The same length of time it took to approve Cumulus and iHeart. It wasn't "his group" that sought this approval. It was Audacy and the Audacy management. Contrary to Carr and Bozell, neither Soros nor his fund were part of that process. The approval didn't go to him or his fund. It went to Audacy, and they didn't do anything unusual with the stations after receiving the approval.

To be clear, all three bankruptcies were what are called "pre-packs." That means they were fully planned and laid out in advance so they could be approved easily and quickly. So all three received the same treatment because all three were done in ways that weren't controversial or had any outstanding issues, unless you looked at the last name of one investor. And there's nothing unusual about that investor, because he already owns 25 radio stations, and they received quick approvals from the FCC two years ago.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Although George Soros is certainly a controversial figure I think the real controversy here is that his group sought and received an expedited approvals process that others have not/would not have received. If there is any legal basis to challenge his acquisition I think it would have to be that.
Click to expand...
There was no expedited approval on the part of the FCC. It took many months for the agency to provide its consent.

The foreign ownership limit waiver question remains pending. In the meantime, Audacy's foreign beneficial ownership is capped at 25 percent, consistent with established FCC rules.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Although George Soros is certainly a controversial figure I think the real controversy here is that his group sought and received an expedited approvals process that others have not/would not have received. If there is any legal basis to challenge his acquisition I think it would have to be that.
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
 
This thread is about Brendan Carr, but the other republican on the FCC is Nate Simington, who questions the ability of the FCC to levy fines on pirate radio operators:

radioink.com

Simington Again Dissents on FCC Pirate Radio Fines - Radio Ink

As the FCC confirms pirate radio fines in the Boston area, the action has again drawn criticism from Commissioner Nate Simington.
radioink.com radioink.com

The article notes that Carr voted with the majority, and Simington was the lone dissenter. It demonstrates the conflicting views of the incoming administration on such simple things as imposing fines.
 
It's interesting where certain groups believe the government is overreaching and not.

Carr's worried that businesses (social media, Audacy) are "stifling" voices from his side, Simington thinks the FCC lacks authority to fine people abusing actual licensed spectrum.

Carr's worry is easily solved by going to another service or starting a blog. The people affected by pirates can't simply change frequencies.

And their own side, broadcast coast to coast, will continue to fawn over the likes of Carr with no critical analysis. Maybe they'd have more credibility if they held him to as much account as the people they rail on daily who often aren't even in power. I still hear hosts blaming Obama for things that happened last week.
 
"The FCC also proposes to eliminate language concerning a cap on the number of applications each applicant could submit in the noncommercial FM filing window. It mandates that an applicant may file no more than a total of 10 applications. The FCC says the limit was intended to be a “limited” rule, and it seeks to have it eliminated."

Is this what I think it is? The return of what happened when Calvary Chapel filed for all those translators, only this time with full power NCEs?
 
Andy Travis said:
Is this what I think it is? The return of what happened when Calvary Chapel filed for all those translators, only this time with full power NCEs?
Click to expand...

Could be. It might also reflect a lessening of demand for non-coms, especially with so many colleges seeking to sell their licenses.
 
Incoming FCC chairman Brendan Carr wants to cut staff and make new efficiencies at the FCC. He sounds a lot like Bob Pittman:

www.insideradio.com

Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr Says Agency Needs Reform, With Or Without DOGE.

Much of Washington’s focus in recent days has just been on keeping the federal government open. But when President-elect Trump takes office in the new year attention will turn from
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

“I think there’s lots of opportunities of synergies at the FCC to push for greater efficiencies,” Carr said earlier this month during his monthly press conference. “We need to be nimble and continue to innovate,” Carr said. “It’s important that all of us in the agency continue to question what’s the best way and most efficient way to do things since we’ll do a soup-to-nuts review.”
Click to expand...
 
TheBigA said:
Incoming FCC chairman Brendan Carr wants to cut staff and make new efficiencies at the FCC. He sounds a lot like Bob Pittman:

www.insideradio.com

Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr Says Agency Needs Reform, With Or Without DOGE.

Much of Washington’s focus in recent days has just been on keeping the federal government open. But when President-elect Trump takes office in the new year attention will turn from
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com
Click to expand...
I'm guessing FCC field officers will be even more a thing of the past than they already are. Don't sweat that night power, AMers.
 
DavidEduardo said:
In some aspects, he makes a valid point. In so many markets, network affiliates make as much as half of their revenue on "must carry". As cable subscribers decline, local TV can't sustain expensive news coverage at all if the networks increased fees to affiliates.
Click to expand...

ABC owns some of those affiliates. So increasing those fees also hurts network O&Os. Iger is well aware of local news costs.
 
radiofan2023 said:
Is this why some local news has national stories from DC or other bureaus? For example, KSHB runs a lot of stories from Scripps in DC.
Click to expand...
As far back as I can remember (well before color TV became common), local news even in larger markets included some national stories, particularly the late news, noon news and, in earlier years, morning news that was not back-to-back with a national newscast.
 


Back
Top Bottom