Wasted 50KW AM Signals

[SCMcKinney]

"While you're making up new rules, why not require all commissioners of the FCC own AM/FM radios and listen at least ten hours per week.

THIS STATEMENT makes more sense than the communism that SCMcKinney's idea."

...So, I'm a real commie eh? That's one of the beautiful things about the theater of the mind on radio (and the internet), you can create any image you want. Actually, I am a small businessman who likes government when it governs least. What some people here seem to be forgetting is that the limited spectrum of the airwaves DO belong to the people, and via the FCC we have granted interested parties the opportunity to use a piece of that spectrum for the benefit of the community at large, as well as the broadcaster. .



" If you take a look at the qualifications for station ownership, the words "real broadcast types' don't appear. If you have the money, are a US citizen, and have never been convicted of a crime, you win. Sorry. While you're calling for minimum programming standards, you're ignoring the fact that it takes MONEY to own a station. The people with money don't care about rules, laws, programming, or communities."

... And here is where a big part of the problem lies. Anybody who presents themselves as wanting to take custody of some limited spectrum ought to be able to announce what their plan is. If you want to establish a business in many towns, you have to announce before the zoning board what you want to do. It ought to be the same for someone who wants to use the people's limited spectrum real estate.

Too many station owners are corporate bean counters who have paid (in the case of Citadel, overpaid) for a gizmo called a radio station that is purported to make a lot of money. Being corporate types, not true broadcasters, they will be constantly looking for ways to economize to maximize their return. The result is cut, cut, cut until we have 50KW's that are being wasted.



To those who have said that altruistic activity does not take place amongst broadcasters (or other businesses), I submit for your approval the United Broadcasters of New Orleans after Katrina. It would have been very easy for WWL to simply wait it out until they could get their own facilities back up and running instead of cooperating with their competitors. The initial weeks of broadcasting were largely free of advertisements, but were focused on getting the message out to their community as to what was the official local government response plans were. Hour after hour of the people being able to announce their whereabouts and situation meets my definition of COMMUNITY SERVICE. Other stations have run community 'penny pitches for kids' at Christmas... that's serving the community.



" Too many "broadcasters" simply don't have the money to become owners. And don't want to. Ownership isn't fun. Once again, you can't compel, force, require, threaten or intimidate potential owners on how to spend their money. If they choose to do what New York Mayor Bloomberg has done with what was once a proud signal, then they do it. And under your rules, he would be allowed to keep his station, even though no one listens."

...When the business is using the public's land (airwaves) you can (or should) be able to compel them to do certain things. If the real estate in question is a 50KW spot, the business should almost expect it.

Regarding Bloomberg, that is an embarrassment when you consider what it replaced. On another board, I suggested that the people be allowed to vote on each station that was licensed in their city at election time; "shall W+++ be allowed to renew their broadcast license?" If the vote was some significant percentage to the negative, the broadcaster would have to sell the license to somebody else. Boy, did I get clobbered on that one! The devil was in the details, of course, but the idea was to weed out people who were simply sitting on frequencies with nobody listening (read: being served by the broadcaster).



"I bet no one under the age of 40 even owns an AM radio any more. While you're making up new rules, why not require all commissioners of the FCC own AM/FM radios and listen at least ten hours per week."

... I've never seen any decent FM radio that doesn't have at least some kind of AM as well (often the reception on the AM has impressed me, even on cheap mass market units). The trick is getting those under 40's to turn the knob. Heck, the trick with the under 25's is getting to be getting them to turn the thing on at all. This is where requiring broadcasters to be programmers comes in. If the service they provide can be made to be essential and interesting to the community, the incidence of wasted 50KW's will be greatly reduced. The industry would be healthier and more fun.

Maybe we SHOULD require the FCC Commissioners to listen to what they are lording over, and submit a report (published in the legal section of the newspaper) as to how THEY think the stations in any given town are serving the public interest.

 

[TheBigA]

On another board, I suggested that the people be allowed to vote on each station that was licensed in their city at election time; "shall W+++ be allowed to renew their broadcast license?" If the vote was some significant percentage to the negative, the broadcaster would have to sell the license to somebody else.

It's a terrible idea. That turns the business of broadcasting into a reality TV show, where people get voted off the island.

And sure, there's a mood of populism that's swept the country right now. Everyone thinks they should sit in judgement of everyone else, and if not, Donald Trump can say "You're fired!" I've been to thousands of public meetings where people make knee-jerk decisions about things, and it's a bad way to run a public-private partnership like broadcasting.

What some people here seem to be forgetting is that the limited spectrum of the airwaves DO belong to the people, and via the FCC we have granted interested parties the opportunity to use a piece of that spectrum for the benefit of the community at large, as well as the broadcaster. .

Once again, that's 1920's language there. That is how the country used to think. No one thinks that way any more, and I really suggest that if this ever comes to court, you'll see how many laws written since this one completely contradict that one "public interest, convenience, and necessity" sentence, and why the government has not enforced it in over 50 years.

This is where requiring broadcasters to be programmers comes in. If the service they provide can be made to be essential and interesting to the community, the incidence of wasted 50KW's will be greatly reduced. The industry would be healthier and more fun.

Now you're getting into the subjective opinion thing again, bringing up words like "essential and interesting." My question is "to whom?" The FCC? A board of community leaders? Originally all you said was a minimum of 75% local content. Now you're changing the rules. You're simply not going to get people to invest millions of their own money on the whim of people voting or making subjective opinions. The only way it's worth it is if the government owns the tower, transmitter, studio, and equipment, and the licensee just comes in with the staff and the content. But if all the government owns is some air, it's not worth it.

 

[SCMcKinney]

Big A:

My objective is to fix the problem of wasted 50KW (and possibly other frequencies on AM and FM) by suggesting ways of bringing real responsibility to broadcast owners. You indicate that my thoughts regarding public ownership of the airwaves is 1920's thinking (long before my time, I assure you) ;D

Maybe it is time for some of that thinking to come back. Certainly an argument could be made for enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust act regarding the multiple ownership of broadcast properties. Although it possibly has made radio operation more efficient, I would challenge anyone to say that radio has become better since ownership caps were removed in the 1990's. Back then, an owner had to go to town with their A-list talent on any property they had, because that was going to be their only platform.

As this thread has observed, now there are many instances of once-laudable properties being a ghost of their former selves. Owners don't have to do anything except keep the cluster healthy. In some cases, I believe that's resulted in owners purposely putting absolute broadcasting incompetance on some stations to fill the air time and occupy the frequency. No one else can challenge the owner for the frequency because it is "his", and really no one can complain about the situation to anyone who is going to care. What audience there is will go to one of the more interesting stations in the cluster, and hopefully boost that station's ratings. This sacrificial lamb scheme would be a OK if there was an unlimited amout of dial space, but there isn't.

In many towns were there were once a dozen competitors, now there are maybe three big operators and a bunch of non-entities on garbage signals. The audience is taken for granted, because they have no choice (or so it was thought). As we have seen, the audience, faced with bland non-competitive radio markets, started looking for new alternatives, and as far as music goes, found it with I-Pods and such. A constant refrain on these boards is how are we going to get the younger demos back? Continuing the way the industry is going is, I submit, not going to succeed.

Putting another spin on it, people aren't going to tolerate a crummy situation anymore just because some private owner says they have to. While I don't largely agree with it, and it has in fact hurt little guys, Eminent Domain regarding private property and 'best potential use' are concepts that are very 21st century legal thinking.

Competition is good, because it makes one look for a way to be better than the other guy. My idea of requiring broadcasters to do something that will serve the communities they are supposed to be catering to would make radio essential to the community, and exciting again. For large, unique properties, such as a 50KW, requiring that a significant portion of their broadcast day (75%?) be live and original will be a way to get this started.

 

[TheBigA]

You indicate that my thoughts regarding public ownership of the airwaves is 1920's thinking (long before my time, I assure you) ;D

Not exactly. That refers to the fact that the original Radio Act was written in 1928.

The public does NOT own the airwaves. That is a myth. They never have, and they don't now either. In reality, no one owns the airwaves. It's just air.

Certainly an argument could be made for enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust act regarding the multiple ownership of broadcast properties.

I think if you read the Act, read the history of the Act, the intent of the Act, and the cases in which it's been used, you will understand that no company that owns large numbers of radio stations are even close to acting as a monopoly. And both the Justice Department (which oversees this aspect) and the SEC signed off on each and every station sale that has ever been made. There are provisions in the 96 Telecom Act that clearly are aimed at controlling potential anti-trust, if it were to happen.

Although it possibly has made radio operation more efficient, I would challenge anyone to say that radio has become better since ownership caps were removed in the 1990's.

Once again, you're bringing up subjective words like "better." The intent of the 96 Act was not to make radio better, so that entire discussion is moot. But since you brought it up, I would ask you if the destruction of clear channel AMs in the 80s made radio better. Did it? You tell me. I would ask you if the over-licensing of the spectrum during the last 30 years has led to better radio. To bring up the 96 Act ignores the 25 years of terrible legislation that preceded it.

As this thread has observed, now there are many instances of once-laudable properties being a ghost of their former selves. Owners don't have to do anything except keep the cluster healthy.

But you have made the incorrect connection that you can correct the problem by requiring owners to broadcast at least 75% local programming. I have clearly demonstrated that your proposal wouldn't really change a thing. What you really want to do is sit in judgement of individual owners and one by one decide if you like what they're doing. You can't do that.

As we have seen, the audience, faced with bland non-competitive radio markets, started looking for new alternatives, and as far as music goes, found it with I-Pods and such.

There is very clear evidence that the exact opposite is true. Sure, you have a small minority of serious music fans who seek fringe forms of music. There always has been. But the vast majority prefer exactly what the research says. That research isn't made up, and (for better or worse) it reflects the honest tastes of the people. We'd all like to think the people want to watch Nova on PBS. But the vast majority prefer reality TV shows where they get to vote someone off the show and see them cry. What was true in the Roman Empire is true today.

Bottom line is that playing music isn't going to solve the problems of 50KW AM stations, and requiring them to be 75% local won't change their music selection either. In fact, I submit to you that increased competition wouldn't cause radio stations to play fringe music. It would simply return us to the old days, where you had 5 stations in one market all playing the same songs, and competing for a piece of the same pie. I know. I was there.

Competition is good, because it makes one look for a way to be better than the other guy. My idea of requiring broadcasters to do something that will serve the communities they are supposed to be catering to would make radio essential to the community, and exciting again. For large, unique properties, such as a 50KW, requiring that a significant portion of their broadcast day (75%?) be live and original will be a way to get this started.

Once again, you assume that the majority wants essential community programming. Once in a while, when there's a local disaster, like a hurricane or tornado, maybe they do. The rest of the time, they don't. If they don't, the competition will be over how to reach the majority, whatever that happens to be. If it's to find out what Miley Cyrus is doing tonight, there will be a feeding frenzy over at her place, even if it's not a local story. THAT, my friend, is what competition is all about. Not clammoring over the BEST, but rather the WORST. It was the case in 1964, when Newton Minnow gave his famous "vast wasteland" speech. And that was long before de-regulation, and at a time when you had a handful of popular AM 50KW stations in this country, like WLS, WABC, and others, all playing The Beatles every hour because it made the girls scream. Not because it served their local community.

 

[Snafu]

How is it that every deregulated industry in this country since 1980 has crashed and burned?

Radio is the Hindenberg. On its present course it is doomed to crash to the ground in flames. If we don't think very outside of the box, and soon your kids are going to be saying "remember when Mom & Dad listened to that thing that played commericals out of thin air? I think they used to call it radio."

 

[TheBigA]

How is it that every deregulated industry in this country since 1980 has crashed and burned?

That's an interesting statement. Are you saying that we as a people are not fit to be free? That we need regulations to prevent us from killing ourselves? Funny...some of the founding fathers had that view of the public. They were afraid of giving all people the right to vote. That's why we still have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, and the President is chosen by the Electoral College instead of popular vote.

We need the strong arm of the government to keep us free.

 

[Prais]

"We need the strong arm of the government to keep us free."

And to GIVE AWAY free enterprise to government control and to tax us all to smithereens.

A, I couldn't disaagree with you, more.

 

[Tom Wells]

I favor a rollback to the more regulated situation and converting many of the AMs added in the 80's to daytime operation, to make the best use of medium wave's advantages.

The people who wrote the radio act of 1928 had seen the potential problems with newspapers and intended to keep radio from
falling to that level.

I submit that making girls scream was in the public's interest.

Deregulation always results in a race to the bottom.
There's always a cheaper way for business to get by, and the customers always lose.
Radio is far too valuable and important to be regarded as merely a business.
Insisting that it's "only a business" and must be run with the profit motive foremost is why it is suffering from reduced relevance.
The people who made radio great were not "business types".
Business minded people are frequently too far removed the "real world" and overestimate the $ value of many things, while completely
ignoring many practical aspects of the product or service.
I am trying to leave room to consider that there are those who DO respect the ART of radio while being sucessful in business.
But due to deregulation (and yes, the failure to respect, follow, and enforce the fairness doctrine) they are caught in a bind,
and must compete with those who have turned radio into the diminished medium it is now.

We do need the strong arm of government to keep us from allowing the worst aspects of human nature to be our guiding force.
We're only fit to be free when the majority of our population has high ideals, when our popular culture reflects the same, and
when responsible, equitable behavior is rewarded. Sadly, we have glorified wealth and the accquisition of wealth as the
highest possible goal, and the results are evident everywhere, not just in radio.
We reward unethical and "bad-ass" behavior in sports, business, and government.
Those who strive to maintain integrity and high ideals are steamrolled mercilessly.

We now enjoy the fruits of this choice we have collectively made or permitted.

 

[TheBigA]

We do need the strong arm of government to keep us from allowing the worst aspects of human nature to be our guiding force.

Except for one small problem: The government these days is made up of people who often promote the worst aspects of human nature. In other words, I don't fear the tyranny of government, but rather the tyranny of those IN government. Those who make the laws are not always seeking to do what's best for the citizens they serve. Some of the same motivations that cause broadcasters to not serve the public interest also guide the lawmakers. Thus, we have the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As flawed as it might be, my fear is that any re-write would make it worse, not better. Because those in Congress would seek to promote their own personal agendas rather than do what's best for the public. As evidenced by the debate over the aforementioned Fairness Doctrine.

 

[TheBigA]

"We need the strong arm of the government to keep us free."

And to GIVE AWAY free enterprise to government control and to tax us all to smithereens.

A, I couldn't disaagree with you, more.

Sorry...that sentence was meant as sarcasm. I find an inherent contradiction between freedom and strong government.

 

[SCMcKinney]

BigA:

My intent is to explore how we could stop the wasted use of 50KW frequencies (and others).

"The public does NOT own the airwaves. That is a myth. They never have, and they don't now either. In reality, no one owns the airwaves. It's just air."

... You may be more of a student than me on this issue. However I did a little research at wikipedia and came up with the following:

The RF spectrum is a natural resource; most countries define the RF as an exclusive property of the state. RF is a national limited resource, much like water, land, gas and minerals. Like these, it is scarce; however, the RF is renewable and not nearing exhaustion.
The first sentence of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) constitution fully recognises “the sovereign right of each State to regulate its telecommunication”.

I am not so sure that "public ownership of the airwaves" is a myth:

The Command and Control management approach is the currently employed one by most of the regulators around the globe. This approach advocates that the regulators be the centralized authorities for spectrum allocation and usage decisions. In the US example, the regulator (FCC) determines the the use cases for specified spectrum portions, as well as the parties who will have access to them. The FCC also regulates the physical layer technologies to be employed. [1]
Under US law, the spectrum is not considered to be the property of the private sector nor of the government except insofar as the term "government" is used to be synonymous with "the people".

...You may be thinking of what I found to be called the "Spectrum Property Rights Model", but as far as I could see, it is still only an alternative theory:

The spectrum property rights model advocates that the spectrum resources should be treated like land, i.e. private ownership of spectrum portions should be permitted. The allocation of these portions should be implemented by means of market forces. The spectrum owners should be able to trade these portions in secondary markets.

The basic idea of spectrum property rights was first proposed by Leo Herzel in 1951 [1], who was a law student at the time preparing a critique of the US FCC policies in spectrum management. Ronald Coase, a Nobel winning economist in 1959. [2] When he first presented his vision to FCC, he was asked whether he was making a joke. Omer182 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC).




"I think if you read the Act [Sherman Anti-trust], read the history of the Act, the intent of the Act, and the cases in which it's been used, you will understand that no company that owns large numbers of radio stations are even close to acting as a monopoly."

.... I need to do more research here. But isn't a part of the intent of the law to correct situations where there is a restraint of competition? In some (smaller)towns ALL the broadcast stations are owned by a handful of large conglomerates.

There was also this from the wikipedia research:

In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry.[13] The report stated that from March 1996 through March 2003, the number of commercial radio stations on the air rose 5.9 percent while the number of station owners fell 35 percent. The concentration of ownership followed a 1996 rewrite of telecommunications law that eliminated a 40-station national ownership cap.
The report was never made public, nor have any similar analyses followed, despite the fact that radio industry reports were released in 1998, 2001 and 2002. In September 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer, who had received a copy of the report, released it.[14]




"The intent of the 96 Act was not to make radio better, so that entire discussion is moot. But since you brought it up, I would ask you if the destruction of clear channel AMs in the 80s made radio better. Did it? You tell me. I would ask you if the over-licensing of the spectrum during the last 30 years has led to better radio. "

... If by the 'destruction' of clear channel AMs you refer to licensing smaller local stations on former 1A frequencies such as 760 WJR, 820 WBAP, 1040 WHO, I would have to question the word 'destruction'. Can I hear them everywhere in the country late at night anymore? No, but any local stations occupying those spots are just that - small local stations. The 50KW's still command a huge potential reach.

Over licensing is certainly a problem, but once done it's tough to walk the cat backwards.



"But you have made the incorrect connection that you can correct the problem by requiring owners to broadcast at least 75% local programming. I have clearly demonstrated that your proposal wouldn't really change a thing. What you really want to do is sit in judgement of individual owners and one by one decide if you like what they're doing."

... I believe I said LIVE, ORIGINAL programming. I don't want to pass judgment on anything. By my rule all the station owner would have to do would be live and original. I think that would be enough to let creative juices flow and force the end of wasted 50KW broadcast capacity. It doesn't necessarily mean local talk about the city council meeting. But it could be something that would have national appeal and could be syndicated to the smaller stations. The 50KW's have enough clout to possibly get something started - then let the sales people apply their energies to providing the revenue streams for it. Remember that the point of this thread (at least my part of it) is to end wasted capacity of large radio properties.


" But the vast majority prefer exactly what the research says. That research isn't made up, and (for better or worse) it reflects the honest tastes of the people."

... On this point you may be right. But a regular refrain I hear from many on-air people on these boards is that when a station is slavishly adhering to what consultants say, innovation goes out the window. Too much radio is programmed for what agency buyers demand (that elusive 18 - 34 demo). Oddly, what ought to be the most diverse market, NYC, has numerous gaps in the city regarding formats. The sticks are SO valuable, everybody is afraid to do anything too daring with them, resulting in a less exciting medium, which I think is hurting the industry overall.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not so sure that "public ownership of the airwaves" is a myth:

That's fine. Everyone has an opinion. At some point, I'm sure the issue will be debated in a court, and I doubt anyone will cite Wikipedia as a reference.

In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry.

So what? The part of the government that determines if a monopoly exists is the Justice Department, not the Mass Media Bureau. The fact is that the FCC, the Justice Department, AND the SEC all signed off on every station sale that has been made since the 96 Act. No one has challenged any licenses based on concentration of media or anti-trust. Once again, a lot of people have opinions on this subject. They repeat them all day on message boards like this one. Just because they repeat their opinions doesn't make them true. No one has brought any charges to court, and no radio company is even being investigated for anti-trust.

Over licensing is certainly a problem, but once done it's tough to walk the cat backwards.

That same point could be made about changing the rules for companies that currently own 50KW AMs. They bought them under certain pretense. Now you want to hold them to a different standard.

... I believe I said LIVE, ORIGINAL programming. I don't want to pass judgment on anything. By my rule all the station owner would have to do would be live and original. I think that would be enough to let creative juices flow and force the end of wasted 50KW broadcast capacity.

But you admit that I have demonstrated that there are in fact owners who do exactly what you would require, and the result has been a waste of their 50KW frequency. Am I right? If that's true, then your premise is false.

... On this point you may be right. But a regular refrain I hear from many on-air people on these boards is that when a station is slavishly adhering to what consultants say, innovation goes out the window.

Where does it say in the Communications Act that radio is supposed to innovate? It seems to me that people want to innovate and experiment using other people's money. Nice work if you can get it.

The sticks are SO valuable, everybody is afraid to do anything too daring with them, resulting in a less exciting medium, which I think is hurting the industry overall.

You can't regulate someone into taking risks. Even non-commercial public radio stations simply turn their frequencies over to the network in Washington. They don't want to alienate those folks who contribute the dollars that keep the station on the air. THAT is what drives radio. Not regulation, not innovation, not idealism, but MONEY, either from advertisers or donors. That is a hard reality to swallow for those who see broadcasting as a public service. Until the government takes more of the risk out of ownership, everyone will have to suffer with the results.

 

[SCMcKinney]

BigA:

When I read back to the beginning of this thread, I note that most of the posts were nominations for the worst waste of 50KW potential. There was very little in the way of discussion on how to improve the situation. Since you sound as if you have some insider experience, perhaps you have some ideas to suggest.



"That same point [over licensing] could be made about changing the rules for companies that currently own 50KW AMs. They bought them under certain pretense. Now you want to hold them to a different standard."

... The government is in the business of writing (and revising) laws all the time. Have you ever seen a copy of the Federal Register? It is a compendium of rule changes, proposed rule changes and final drafts of proposed rule changes. A lot of trees are sacrificed to that cause. I am sure nobody who does anything that remotely touches the government expects their business operation to stay static forever.



"But you admit that I have demonstrated that there are in fact owners who do exactly what you would require, and the result has been a waste of their 50KW frequency."

... I am not looking to have my one idea rebuild the entire industry, but I am looking to encourage innovation in an industry that desperately needs it. Some people who do original programming don't do a very good job with it... but I am not passing judgement on them, at least they are trying. Some stations do original programming and do a very good job with it (WSM and WLW). Many (most?) stations are doing nothing more than running a local morning show and then pulling the rest of the day off the satellite, or spinning the same records they did yesterday. That's fine for the small operators. For a 50KW owner they should be expected to do more, or hand the power capabilities off to someone who is willing to try.



"Where does it say in the Communications Act that radio is supposed to innovate?"

... Nowhere I don't expect, but a healthy industry is one that is constantly evolving. All I hear on these boards nowadays is cut,cut,cut, and 'where have all the listeners (and jobs) gone?' My idea would serve to start correcting this problem starting with radio properties that are perhaps best equipped to take on the task.



"Until the government takes more of the risk out of ownership, everyone will have to suffer with the results."

... How would you propose the government take the risk out of ownership? Or rather, how could they take any more risk out? The way things stand now, a station operator can do practically anything they want, and what we've got is every FM station largely going after a few advertiser approved demographic groups, and occassionally scraping bottom as far as taste goes. As this tread started, some significant number of uniquely powered AM properties were identified as being wasted. Effectively, they have the license to do this forever and nobody can say squat about it. Obviously some people on this board see that there is more potential for this medium than that.



"Over licensing is certainly a problem, but once done it's tough to walk the cat backwards"

... One additional thought on this. Maybe some mechanism could be made for allowing station owners (or the govrnment) to buy out marginal frequencies and move the offending stations on the clear channels to those vacated spots or other positions that would allow for a profitable operation. I have heard on other boards that getting marginal operations to go dark would be a great leap forward in improving the health of the industry.

 

[TheBigA]

There was very little in the way of discussion on how to improve the situation. Since you sound as if you have some insider experience, perhaps you have some ideas to suggest.

There is no way to improve the situation. We live in a country that is motivated by profit. That's just how it is. Once that motivation has been removed, the investment money disappears. Back in 1928, the government COULD have created a very different broadcasting system. But they didn't want to incur the expense of ownership. That's how the American system was started. It's very different from practically every other system in the world. In some ways it's better, and in some ways it's worse. But that's the system.

For a 50KW owner they should be expected to do more, or hand the power capabilities off to someone who is willing to try.

That is simply not the way we do business in this country. Name an industry where that happens.

... How would you propose the government take the risk out of ownership? Or rather, how could they take any more risk out?

I offered this option before: The government own all the hardware. Towers, transmitters, studios, equipment. You're juding these owners on their content. But if they don't pass your standards, they lose all their hardware. That's not fair. The hardware wasn't the problem. So take the hardware out of the equation, and the license only covers content.

As this tread started, some significant number of uniquely powered AM properties were identified as being wasted. Effectively, they have the license to do this forever and nobody can say squat about it.

Sure you can. You challenge the current owner. Complain to the FCC. The system is explained in the Communications Act. I know someone who challenged an owner on the basis that they were underutilizing their frequency. And they won. The license renewal was not granted, and the challenger applied for the license and won. It doesn't happen very often, because the owners are pretty good at justifying what they do. But there is a procedure in place. What some people want is a more activist FCC. I believe, given the current budget, that's very unlikely to happen any time soon. Plus the FCC has many more issues on its plate besides AM & FM radio. And that really is why things are the way they are.

Maybe some mechanism could be made for allowing station owners (or the govrnment) to buy out marginal frequencies and move the offending stations on the clear channels to those vacated spots or other positions that would allow for a profitable operation. I have heard on other boards that getting marginal operations to go dark would be a great leap forward in improving the health of the industry.

Once again, who decides who is a "marginal owner?" I'm not a big fan of religious radio. So I'd probably vote to call most of them "marginal operators." But they could claim that I would be intruding on their freedom of religion. Too much of this thread and your proposal is about subjective likes and dislikes, and the government is not going to get involved in this kind of stuff, because it opens the doors for discrimination lawsuits.

 

[SCMcKinney]

"Back in 1928, the government COULD have created a very different broadcasting system. But they didn't want to incur the expense of ownership. That's how the American system was started. It's very different from practically every other system in the world. In some ways it's better, and in some ways it's worse."

... The American system is based on private operation of broadcast properties. Considering what would be produced by a government run one, this system is much better. I understand that the private stations in Britain are giving the Beeb a run for their money, to the point that there have been calls to cut their taxpayer subsidy.



"That [expecting more from a 50KW operator] is simply not the way we do business in this country. Name an industry where that happens."

... To get many government contracts, the successful bidder is going to have to meet requirements that other businesses would not. Although we have a fundamental disagreement on this point, I still maintain that the airwaves ARE public property, and businesses that operate on them are doing so only on a license that suggests the public's tacit approval. Maybe an analogy would be a guy who wants to operate a concession stand on a public beach. He doesn't get to buy the piece of the beach. He is granted the opportunity to put a building there, and the handicapped access and hours of operation will be approved by the town council. At the end of the lease period (in this case 50 years), the town council has the right to renew, change the rules, or revoke the privlege. This is happening in Pinellas County, Florida today.




"The government own all the hardware. Towers, transmitters, studios, equipment. You're judging these owners on their content. But if they don't pass your standards, they lose all their hardware."

...Honestly, I don't recall seeing that suggestion in this thread. But I do recall some people calling me a socialist and a communist. The government owning the hardware would very definitely mean that they or some board could 'pass judgement' on what is broadcast using government equipment. In my idea, the loser who just wants to broadcast from the bird and/or with no originality would lose the right to the POWER not the privlege of doing whatever it is they call broadcasting at a more normal kilowattage. This would be effected by swapping dial positions with whoever is willing to step up to the creative plate. (Thus working to end wasted 50KW capacity).

Again 'originality' is defined as a live body speaking into a microphone. It DOES NOT prescibe what will be said or whether it will be entertaining or successful. It will not solve all problems with wasted capacity, but I bet it would be a start.


"Sure you can [say squat about license renewal]. You challenge the current owner."

... On another board I asked if those there could recall anybody ever getting their ticket yanked, and beyond WOR (NYC) and WHDH (Boston), the response was nil. Those issues were due to financial irregularities, not content, and the owners were merely told to get out of the broadcasting business, which they did by selling the stations. The prospects of a complaint getting a license yanked are so incredibly small it is laughable. If sex in St. Pat's won't get a license yanked, owners can be confident that no content (or lack thereof) will ever get them in trouble. The license is effectively theirs forever.



"Once again, who decides who is a "marginal owner?"

... I was kind of shocked when I heard that proposed myself, since the guy who wrote it was active in the industry. In the case of that post, we were discussing the prospects of what would be the something new coming on a small station on the upper end of the AM dial. He explained that the property the station was on was too small to expand to effectively increase power, and that any business plan would only allow them to be an uber-local station (i.e. not very viable). His solution was to let the station go dark and sell the valuable urban land or allow them to move to a more rural area where power and tower issues could be dealt with. The station has stayed put, and now runs ABC's oldies format off of satellite.

 

[davideduardo]

... On another board I asked if those there could recall anybody ever getting their ticket yanked, and beyond WOR (NYC) and WHDH (Boston), the response was nil. Those issues were due to financial irregularities, not content, and the owners were merely told to get out of the broadcasting business, which they did by selling the stations. The prospects of a complaint getting a license yanked are so incredibly small it is laughable. If sex in St. Pat's won't get a license yanked, owners can be confident that no content (or lack thereof) will ever get them in trouble. The license is effectively theirs forever.

Of reecent there have been few licence revocations.... but not so in the past.

Don Burden's Star Broadcasting. Stations in Portland, OR, Denver, Omaha and Indianapolis revoked over ex parte discussions with congressmen and bribes.

WMXJ Miami. Revoked due to rigged contest. 580 AM, a Walton station revoked for the same thing.

RKO General told to sell LA, Memphis, DC, SF, etc., due to corporate malfeasance (Bribing in Argentina and Libya by parent corporation).

WGCB stations, Red Lion, PA, revoked due to failure to obsereve equal time, fairness doctrine, etc. Reverend Norris case.

Rock Hill, SC. AM revoked due to filthy content by morning talent.

KRLA Los Angeles (Pasadena) revoked over illegal transfer of control to a foreigner.

WRSJ-FM San Juan, O. Roy Chalk lost licence over issues involving service to community, etc.

KWK St Louis. Revocation over license issues.

WOOK Wasington, DC. Revoked for issues such as broadcasting a lottery.

WFAB Miami, revoked over double billing.

Stations whose calls I don't remember in Terre Haute, IN and several other markets revoked when licensee convicted of child molestation and declared unfit as licensee.

Those are just a few I remember off the top of my head... there were quite a few over double billing that I don't remember, as that was a practice that nearly always resulted in revocation. With computers and such, it likely does not happen much today.

 

[radiorob2.0]

...as long as we are this far of topic.......

WOOK announced the winning numbers within a religious program. Three numbers were hidden in the chapter and verses of the day.

 

[davideduardo]

...as long as we are this far of topic.......

WOOK announced the winning numbers within a religious program. Three numbers were hidden in the chapter and verses of the day.

Yeah, Richard Eaton, owner of United Broadcasting, was a prince among men. He also lost WFAB, and almost lost WMUR-TV.

People who complain about owners today should be sent back in a time machine to work for Eaton or Don Burden or Max Richman (or was it "Richmond?") or any of a number of strange, abusive or quirky broadcasters of the past.

I made that trip in real time and served 3 years or so with one of Eaton's stations.

 

[gr8oldies]

The problem with determining "public interest" is exactly who is "the public" or speaks for "the public"?. If I want to hear Rush Limbaugh on a good signal am I less a member of the public than someone who thinks they know what I "need"? For that matter, if the Salem religious teaching station has listeners, are the folks that listen to the fire and brimstone guys not "members of the public"? Who wants to be in charge of what I "should" hear?

 

[TheBigA]

... To get many government contracts, the successful bidder is going to have to meet requirements that other businesses would not.

Maybe you can be more specific. Operating a radio station has nothing to do with getting a government contract.