• 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

WNBM 103.9 Flipping to Conservative Talk

Any move that meets the technical rules can be done. The FCC does not regulate formats or, even, the viability of stations.

If it could move to a better site it would. For a better signal, NYC Metro stations would pay the best engineers in the country a lot of money to find a way to do that.

The FCC regulates that sort of thing by the laws of physics, not by ownership.

And you have already been shown that there is no company in the US with more than 5% of all radio stations so there are no monopolies. And in today's Internet world where you have thousands of streams, podcasts and online music and talk alternatives, there is no such thing as a monopoly.
I am not saying they should strictly regulate formats or the viability of stations. At the very least the FCC should only provide a license to those willing to serve a geographic area - community. To the extent at least if the available allocations are so limited and only a few frequencies available on FM then a Polish language broadcaster would not receive a license.

It is not the same comparing internet streaming to FM radio serving a community particularly during emergencies when streaming is unavailable and cell towers down.

I get it would be bad for industry professionals financially if these national conglomerates were out of the picture.

As far back as the 60's, per FCC financial reports, half of all stations did not make money.

The biggest issue of the last 6 decades has been the gradual additions to the FM table of allocations, changes in protection of AM clear channel station and, then, finally Docket 80-90 that radically increased the number of FM allocations, allowed for extreme power increases and loads of relocations.

So, by the early 90's even more stations were not profitable. The only solution to avoid degradation of service and the closing of many stations was to increase ownership limits so companies could share overhead among many stations in each market.

That is interesting and wonder what the breakdown was of unprofitable stations. Was it something like losses seen in only major markets with offices and towers on expensive real estate and over paid talent from doing business like it is a period that no longer exists?
 
I am not saying they should strictly regulate formats or the viability of stations. At the very least the FCC should only provide a license to those willing to serve a geographic area - community. To the extent at least if the available allocations are so limited and only a few frequencies available on FM then a Polish language broadcaster would not receive a license.
The market needs determine formats. Someone does Polish in Chicago because there is no broader format that would work on the station in question.

There is a reason why there is no country station in NYC any longer. There is a reason why there are two Urban stations. All market driven.
It is not the same comparing internet streaming to FM radio serving a community particularly during emergencies when streaming is unavailable and cell towers down.
The people who only stream and do FaceBook or TikTok on their smartphone don't have a radio at home, so your point stopped being valid more than a decade ago.
I get it would be bad for industry professionals financially if these national conglomerates were out of the picture.
Yeah, so many stations would be losing money that most of our jobs would be gone.
That is interesting and wonder what the breakdown was of unprofitable stations. Was it something like losses seen in only major markets with offices and towers on expensive real estate and over paid talent from doing business like it is a period that no longer exists?
It was everywhere from Lake City, FL to Shelby, MT, mostly in markets that could not really sustain a station... or worse, two or three. But it was also the daytimers in large markets, Class A FMs on the periphery of big markets and even big signals that were in small markets near big ones where listeners preferred the more polished major market stations. It was also stations that were not well managed, and which fell on their own sword.

The big, full signal stations almost always made money. Of course, in the last two decades more and more previously viable AM stations have gone downhill to a losing situation... WLS, KGO, KABC are good examples.
 
At the very least the FCC should only provide a license to those willing to serve a geographic area - community.

What do you base that on? What is "serving a community?" The rules are very broad.

I get it would be bad for industry professionals financially if these national conglomerates were out of the picture.

No, it would be bad for the public if the national conglomerates were out of the picture. Because the only other groups with money for radio are religious.
 
This station runs an hour long syndicated news show called America in the Morning. It is broadcast weekdays from 6-7 AM, and again 8-9 AM. I've been listening to it during times when NPR's Morning Edition is running features that I don't find interesting. The program seems quite well produced.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom