What Would YOU Recommend?

[Element9]

Radio-Info News reports: Genachowski's ready to take a whack at FCC ownership rules.

Previous FCC Chairmen Martin and Powell got stuck in the mud up to their hubcaps, but Julius Genachowski came to this position determined to do the Big Things. Like enshrining net neutrality to keep the Internet as a level playing field, and reining in consolidation.

To that end, he sets aside three days (November 2-4) for "workshops" - hearings - leading to the required quadrennial review process in 2010. It's supposed to scrutinize five ownership rules - newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership (nobody doubts the pain newspapers are feeling).

Radio/TV cross-ownership. Local TV ownership rule. Local radio ownership rule. And TV's dual network rule.

But Genachowski has other big game in his sights. Such as (possibly) an ownership limit "for all media within a relevant market", instead of strict numerical limits for numbers of radio and TV stations and newspapers. (Maybe cable, too?)

And what's a "relevant market" - the local DMA or metro, or all radio stations nationally?

Then there's the FCC's long-brewing "Localism" initiative that might require community advisory boards. That gets folded into this, too. Ditto diversity, and competition.[/font]

_________________________________________________

So what would YOU recommend? To Mr. Genachowski.

I'd suggest an ownership cap of two AM and two FM per market. Of course, this will NEVER happen because, especially in this economic climate, who's going to buy the properties required to be spun off by Entercom, Clear Channel, Cumulus, Saga and Citadel.

Allow newspapers to get back into AM/FM/TV cross-ownership, allowing newspapers to hold "a total of two of three" services AM/FM/TV (e.g., newspaper + 1 FM and 1 TV; newspaper + 1 TV and 1 AM; newspaper + 1 AM and 1 FM) with a baseline requirement to provide live, local news, public affairs and public service content in all dayparts on all RF services.

Eliminate AM iBoc, if only to squeeze another ten years out of the AM band and help the "little guys" survive in the face of tougher competition.

 

[Bob1370]

"I'd suggest an ownership cap of two AM and two FM per market. Of course, this will NEVER happen because, especially in this economic climate, who's going to buy the properties required to be spun off by Entercom, Clear Channel, Cumulus, Saga and Citadel."

This would essentially mean a return of the rules in place from the early 1980s through the end of 1996 prior to the current Telecommunications Act. At this stage it might be as much of a boon to the big groups as a bane, since it would lighten the horrible debt loads a lot of these companies are carrying as a result of their 1990s acquisition binge--assuming they can find anyone to buy some of the properties they'd be shedding. They probably can, but at a price which will bring the whole business back to the real world.

"Allow newspapers to get back into AM/FM/TV cross-ownership, allowing newspapers to hold "a total of two of three" services AM/FM/TV (e.g., newspaper + 1 FM and 1 TV; newspaper + 1 TV and 1 AM; newspaper + 1 AM and 1 FM) with a baseline requirement to provide live, local news, public affairs and public service content in all dayparts on all RF services."

Not a bad rule--realistically I'd say one daily paper, one TV and no more than two AM and two FM in large markets 1-30, and one of each in markets 31-100.

"Eliminate AM iBoc, if only to squeeze another ten years out of the AM band and help the "little guys" survive in the face of tougher competition."

This makes sense for purely technical reasons since iBOC has simply made an aural mess out of the band. Tell stations to resume transmitting 50 hZ-15 kHz CQUAM stereo audio at 125% peak modulation, like they used to before the current NRSC standards with the rolloff curve (most AM transmitters built since 1950 can handle it if you install a halfway decent modern exciter), and impose type acceptance requirements on receivers so they can actually receive the better audio when it's transmitted.

I'd add a return to meaningful local public service and local origination requirements of the type we had prior to 1981.

 

[Savage]

Ummm...Bob-O, with all due respect....older AM transmitters for the most part don't have exciters. At least not until the advent of all solid-state transmitters using PDM or PWM, and certainly not AM transmitters of 1950 - 1980 vintage.

The time honored AM transmitter design was a box which generated a big pile of RF energy and a similarly big pile of audio power, combining the two through a modulation transformer and a swinging choke called a "modulation reactor." This is classic high-level plate modulation which is still used by a number of AM transmitters which employ tubes. (The exception to this is RCA's Ampliphase which had an exciter and used phase-differential modulation, but there are precious few of those old beasts still actually in service.)

And any AM solid state transmitter which actually has an exciter can certainly do C-QUAM, but you wouldn't want asymmetrical modulation (+125%, -99%) with AM Stereo. The results could be icky.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Bob, I'd like to see limits on ownership based on how many stations are in a specific city. There are some small markets where if you own 2 AM's and 2 FM you pretty much have the market cornered, especially if you bought the 4 best signals!

In truth I don't think anything will happen. People under forty are not that interested in radio, they are not active listeners. Radio is just there if they use it at all. There are lots of alternatives to radio without the endless parade of commercials.

What the big group owners are doing now is sucking every last dollar they can out of radio and TV while investing as little as possible in talent or content. When they are done the stations they can't unload will be donated to non-profit groups.

This doesn't apply to all operators. It mainly applies to the ones who bought a lot of stations and must turn big profits to pay the bank for what they bought while also keeping stockholders happy.

 

[therealjm12]

I'd like to see the number of AM & FM's regulated to the size of the market. N. Y.C. 3 AM's & FM's would certainly make sense. Maybe up to market 50. Over 50 the two and two makes sense. As far as breaking them up, I think grandfathering the present system would work and be fair. When and if they sell the new rules would apply. The clusters would have to be broken up.
As far as the newspapers go I think changes need to be made to save the companies. I could certainly live with for example: the New York Times owned Two AM'S & FM's and a TV station. However, in a market the size of .... say Syracuse, The newspaper and one of each AM, FM, TV.
Just because times change is no reason for monopolies and complete domination of a market.

 

[heydaybegone]

I think the market should take care of itself. (Insert several icons here - Grin, chuckle, roll eyes...you get the picture)

 

[DaveBullard]

An arbitrary limit will create greater concentration in smaller markets. Better to use a relative measure, such as a percentage. I'd add that the percentage should be based on the population in the A or B coverage area.

In Syracuse, for example, WSYR and WFBL are not equal. One has a good signal and the other does not.

Newspaper ownership couldn't hurt at this point, though newspapers are more likely to want TV than radio.

I'd reinstate local news and public affairs rules.

I'd ban moving frequencies out of submarkets. I'd be looking for ways to put local radio back on the air. (I live in Oswego County, a chunk of the Syracuse market, which, in my lifetime, has gone from having 6 local radio stations to none. As we live in a county with three nuclear plants and an annual 200 inches of snow, radio communications take on a certain added importance.)

I'd provide disincentives to move frequencies out of submarkets. Power reductions or high tariffs or even annual compensation payments to the municipality losing service.

I'd provide short-term tax breaks to radio companies that put local staffs and local information on the air, as it is way too expensive to start up a local talk-and-news operation otherwise.

For what it's worth.

 

[caveman-97]

It's unrealistic to expect the government to regulate radio programming. They lack the resources to listen to thousands of stations, and government employees are in no position to objectively evaluate programming. Plus there is a serious First Amendment issue.

Older listeners will recall the bad old days when stations used to comply with public affairs requirements by airing an hour program at 5 a.m. each Sunday morning.

HD radio's big flaw is the attempt to simulcast analog and digital, using adjacent chanels to transmit the digital data. The interference on AM is dreadful and the FM interference is also unacceptable. Digital should be on its own separate band.

Regarding limits on ownership, I'd roll back ownership limits to what was in effect prior to enactment of the Communications Act of 1996. I'd give the conglomerates five years to divest.

 

[heydaybegone]

I'd give the conglomerates five years to divest.

In today's environment...it will take less time than that ( again - chuckle, grin, wink)

 

[Mike Sheridan]

An arbitrary limit will create greater concentration in smaller markets. Better to use a relative measure, such as a percentage. I'd add that the percentage should be based on the population in the A or B coverage area.

In Syracuse, for example, WSYR and WFBL are not equal. One has a good signal and the other does not.

Newspaper ownership couldn't hurt at this point, though newspapers are more likely to want TV than radio.

I'd reinstate local news and public affairs rules.

I'd ban moving frequencies out of submarkets. I'd be looking for ways to put local radio back on the air. (I live in Oswego County, a chunk of the Syracuse market, which, in my lifetime, has gone from having 6 local radio stations to none. As we live in a county with three nuclear plants and an annual 200 inches of snow, radio communications take on a certain added importance.)

I'd provide disincentives to move frequencies out of submarkets. Power reductions or high tariffs or even annual compensation payments to the municipality losing service.

I'd provide short-term tax breaks to radio companies that put local staffs and local information on the air, as it is way too expensive to start up a local talk-and-news operation otherwise.

For what it's worth.

Not that I disagree but the problem is the sub markets used to rely on the mom and pop stores to buy ads. The big box stores came in and forced out the mom and pop retailers. The big box stores don't usually buy time on the little local radio station.

 

[DaveBullard]

The big box stores came in and forced out the mom and pop retailers. The big box stores don't usually buy time on the little local radio station.

True, and agreed. But at the same time, technology has advanced and mom and pop radio stations can become more competitive.

1. What would you rather have: A metropolitan radio stations that occasionally mentions your hometown but does little or nothing to serve it, or a local station of possibly lesser talent, being obsessively local, but using technology to automate what they need to automate in order to operate profitably?

There are one-man internet based radio stations now. All that's missing is the tower, someone to sell ads, and an engineer on call. Can a two-man operation make 100K plus the cost of power/tower/bills? Maybe.

2. Technology makes it possible for small town stations to create an ad cooperative. Maybe the big box retailers don't want to buy small markets one at a time, but a co-op of small market stations, each one with a Wal-Mart and a McDonald's and a Subway, should be able to command big box attention.

Bottom line: It's never been more important to have local information and yet there's never been less of it in the modern media era. Local newspapers are shrinking or closing, TV stations are cutting staff (and, in the case of my alma mater, WTVH, just giving up and closing), radio stations have consolidated to the bigger markets, cut staff and given up on their original communities of license.

Radio can find relevance again, and profit, at the small town level.

 

[caveman-97]

We're getting miles off the subject matter which is what to suggest that the FCC do about huge conglomerates.

A major problem for radio, especially small market radio, is ad agencies. Many are run by people who don't know much more about advertising than their clients. Many agencies are hundreds of miles from the market they are buying and they haven't a clue about what's going on in Cheektowaga or Auburn. They make buys based on badly flawed data and produce copy that's out of touch with the station's audience. Sometimes the copy isn't right for any audience.

The good news is that the overwhelming majority of retail shops aren't represented by agencies. A good sales person offering reasonable rates can bring in some nice revenues and the station can produce an ad that will motivate its listeners.

A few years ago Wal-Mart opened up a store in the community where my station is located. Predictably Wal-Mart won't spend a nickel with us but the local Ace Hardware store owner realized that he was going to get killed if he did no advertising. Wal-Mart remains good for nothing but Ace has turned into a good account. And no agency is involved.