how-to block ads
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| This is a great idea
This is one area where I agree with the FCC. The reason this rule should have been kept in the first place is because stations in small markets are often bought up by new owners who never intend to serve that city. What they want to do is to move the tower as close as possible to the nearest major city and try to get a rimshot signal into it. If they can do that, they then move the station's studios and offices there, abandoning their real city of license.
A perfect example is Tuscaloosa, AL. The metro area has something like 120,000 residents, and, before 1996, it had two local stations doing news. Then there was a network affiliation shakeup in Birmingham, which is about 55 miles away, and the new owners of one of the stations decided they wanted to be a player in the Birmingham area, so they essentially packed up WCFT and moved it. At the same time, the owners of WDBB, who also owned a Birmingham station, converted the Tuscaloosa station into nothing more than a repeater for WTTO, dropping their local news in the process. So, in just a few months, the area went from having two local stations to none. The only thing that brought local news back was when, a few years later, some local businessmen bought a LPTV station and added local programming.
So, yes, I agree with the FCC. If someone owns a local station, then they should serve the city it's licensed to serve. If they don't want to do that, then they can start a cable or satellite channel and not worry about local programming. And, while the FCC is at it, they could change some more rules, such as:
Reinstitute ownership limits. The 12-12-12 rule seems perfectly reasonable to me, with a limit of no more than 1 AM, 1 FM, and 1 TV per market. This worked fine for decades, and lest anyone think this is stupid, it was the elimination of ownership caps that allowed companies like Clear Channel to turn local radio into the wasteland it is today.
Require an operator on duty at all time, and require them to keep transmitter logs. For those who don't know, radio stations had to have someone there at all times who checked transmitter readings each hour and logged them. You didn't have to have a degree in engineering to do this, nor did you really have to know the ins and outs of what all the numbers meant, but you knew what was normal for your transmitter, so, if the numbers went awry, you called in your station engineer to have a look. But that was back when people actually gave a damn what their stations sounded like.
Eliminate bidding for licenses and return to a comparative application process. It wasn't a perfect process, but at least a little guy had a chance of winning a license, as opposed to now, when the high bidder gets it. And again, this is why keeping stations in their cities of license makes sense. As it stands, any town within 75 miles of a large city isn't going to have a chance in hell of having a local station. Even if someone there wants to get a license and serve that local area, they often can't outbid the big media companies who want that license so they can try to get a slice of the bigger media pie farther up the interstate. | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | Your info is a little outdated but I get your point. A little supplemental data:
The situation in Tuscaloosa would not have been changed by a stricter main studio rule. They would have set up in Birmingham and originated 49% of their local programming there and met the old rules. The Tuscaloosa studio would serve mostly as a sham office and control point. One of the reasons the rule was changed to allow the studio to be anywhere inside the city-grade contour is that it was outdated and irrelevant, and trivially easy to circumvent. Radio's doesn't even need to be in the city grade anymore, which is kind of stupid but so are the congresscritters who pressured the FCC to do it.
The 12-12-12 limit worked fine when there were half as many stations. While I don't agree with unlimited ownership the old limits were too tight. What really needs to be done is to reclaim the noncommercial, educational end of the FM band (88.1-91.9) from the so-called "religious" operators and return it to its original purpose: Community service.
ATS (Automatic Transmission System, basically automated remote control) has been around for almost 30 years, and hourly readings gave way to readings every three hours (and the hourly readings replaced readings every 30 minutes) due to advances in transmitter technology which made them unnecessary. Most modern transmitters can run for weeks without adjustment...some for years...and the meter readings don't really tell you anything. The days of the transmitter babysitter are over. Most of those people taking readings got their FCC licenses via license mills and would not have known what to do even if the transmitter lost AFC lock and took off down the dial... Properly set up ATS will call the engineer when something goes out of tolerance, which is what that babysitter was supposed to be doing anyway.
Instead of trying to stick it to licensees with what amounts to regulatory extortion, the FCC should simply require local content again, produced for the community of license. Ascertainment Interviews, Issues and Programs lists, news and public affairs requirements, et. al. were a pain in the ass but it did get at least basic service to the CoL. And it helped localize radio and to a certain extent TV. Radio sold its soul when it eliminated the local DJ.
The auction nonsense is purely a Congressional figment. The FCC has a Congressional mandate to award commercial broadcast licenses by auction when a conflict exists, but it is not always required. For example, there are a couple hundred new AM station construction permits in process or already on-air which do not conflict with others filed in the January 2004 filing window and did not go to auction.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | said by RadioDoc  :Instead of trying to stick it to licensees with what amounts to regulatory extortion, the FCC should simply require local content again, produced for the community of license. Ascertainment Interviews, Issues and Programs lists, news and public affairs requirements, et. al. were a pain in the ass but it did get at least basic service to the CoL. And it helped localize radio and to a certain extent TV. Radio sold its soul when it eliminated the local DJ. BBBBUTTTTTTT THATS VIOLATING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND CENSORSHIP TO DIRECT ON AIR CONTENT!!!!!!!
*statute struck down in federal court* | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Wrong. | |
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to RadioDoc
Agreed. Actually, I agree about the improvements in transmitter technology. In reality, since most of them are off-site at the tower some distance away, you're already doing remote monitoring. At the station where I worked in high school and summers during college, the transmitter was in a room right next to the control room. It was this ancient Collins behemoth. And did it ever need monitoring and routine tweaking. But anyway, my point was more that monitoring was beneficial because it kept a live human at the station, and, more often than not, it was a DJ, so it kept at least a few more stations live for a while longer.
As for ownership limits, 12-12-12 may be a bit strict, but there needs to be curbs, especially on how many stations can be co-owned in a single market. Other than leading to bland, cookie-cutter programming, large clusters tend to squeeze out the remaining independents. If you're a local operator, it's hard to compete with a couple of corporate-owned clusters that have everything fed in via satellite and/or voice-tracked from another city. The big group owners like to say that, because of satellite radio, iPods, CD's, etc., there is plenty of competition and no need for limits. However, one could also argue that, because of satellite radio, iPods, CD's, etc., there are plenty of other avenues for these companies to pursue and no need for them to own a bunch of stations.
I'm not for overly-restrictive rules, but it's the lack of any meaningful regulations that have turned local broadcasting, especially radio, into the cesspool of mediocrity that it is today. Radio used to be a pleasure to listen to. The big-city stations had slick production values and the best talent, while the small-town stations had all that homespun local programming and the new guys who were trying to get good enough to make it to the big stations. It was fun to listen to, no matter where you were. But now all we hear is the same shitty programming coast to coast. The big media companies swooped in, bought up everything, and flushed quality right down the toilet.
Oh, about the Tuscaloosa/Birmingham situation, some of the rules might have helped, specifically the duopoly prohibition. When Albritton (sp?) bought WCFT, they couldn't use it to cover all of the Birmingham metro, so they also bought WJSU, which could hit the other side of the metro area, and combined them. Since Tuscaloosa was no longer its own DMA (it was absorbed by the Birmingham DMA), the old duopoly rules might have kept ABC 33/40 from being created, which might have meant that WCFT could have remained a Tuscaloosa station. No guarantees there, but in a more regulated environment, this situation might not have been allowed to happen. If a company wants to serve a large city, let them buy a station in that city, not steal local service away from nearby communities to enter the market. Another side effect of the combined DMA is that we now get to have WIAT as the market's CBS affiliate. That station isn't even viewable OTA in Tuscaloosa. If you don't have cable or satellite, you can't even get it at all. | |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to patcat88
No first amendment on television- all airwaves are legally controlled by the FCC and they can do whatever they want with the licenses. | |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :What really needs to be done is to reclaim the noncommercial, educational end of the FM band (88.1-91.9) from the so-called "religious" operators and return it to its original purpose: Community service. That is a fabulous idea. While they are tax-exempt, they are there to turn a profit, even if it is for a church. I won't even touch the separation of church and state issue here... oops, I just did.
I'd also like to see a bit more spectrum for the community stations so that they can spread out and have a bit more power. At least around here, the only stuff worth listening to is down at the low end of the dial but it sucks to not be able to listen in the car or to have to rig some elaborate antenna system in the attic to pull in stations not more than 20 miles away.
Not to mention the rinky-dink stations seem to be the only ones that give a rat's ass about how they sound. The big stations with all that compression and magic "sweeteners" sound like the audio equivalent of runny oatmeal. The little guys still have dynamic range, which I'll take over a bit of hiss or whatever else the compression is masking.
Internet radio is great as well, but until I can easily/cheaply get it in my car and my bathroom it's limited in it's usefulness. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to EPS
said by EPS :No first amendment on television- all airwaves are legally controlled by the FCC and they can do whatever they want with the licenses. Not when you get an activist federal judge or the supreme court involved and your a mega corporation.
Verizon Wireless has used the first amendment to control and filter content on its network by claiming it has a right to express itself (which is interpreted to mean controlling its image). | |
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
quote:
Instead of trying to stick it to licensees with what amounts to regulatory extortion, the FCC should simply require local content again, produced for the community of license. Ascertainment Interviews, Issues and Programs lists, news and public affairs requirements, et. al. were a pain in the ass but it did get at least basic service to the CoL. And it helped localize radio and to a certain extent TV. Radio sold its soul when it eliminated the local DJ.
wow never knew some stations outsource their DJs. course ive had only two primary stations in my life lol. though i wouldnt be surprised of a company named Clearchannel was the biggest offender of remote DJs.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88 :said by EPS :No first amendment on television- all airwaves are legally controlled by the FCC and they can do whatever they want with the licenses. Not when you get an activist federal judge or the supreme court involved and your a mega corporation. Verizon Wireless has used the first amendment to control and filter content on its network by claiming it has a right to express itself (which is interpreted to mean controlling its image). Again, Wrong. Broadcast and cell phones aren't even in the same regulatory planetary system.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to sporkme
Heh...well that's the problem with "community radio". It is not supposed to be serving you 20 miles away. 
Here in the Chicago area there are about three dozen college and high school station stuffed into those 20 channels, along with a couple of the usual suspects like Moody on 90.1 (running a grandfathered 100 KW ERP which takes six other channels out of the pool for small locals but at least runs some local programming) and Family Stations up at 91.9 in Joliet at 50 KW ERP wasting electricity & spectrum and running nothing local.
At least in the Chicago market the very high density of little class-D NCE-FMs in the 70's who upgraded to class-A predated the "religious" invasion and occupation of the band so the bulk of what you hear down there is amateurish, inconsistent and totally wonderful.
Having been in this business for over 30 years now it really pains me to see what the "product" has become, but many of my clients still do it the old fashioned way, and actually serve their markets and gives me a little ray of hope...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL | reply to Kearnstd
You've never heard of voice tracking? Oh man, you don't get out much, do you? | |
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| LOL...especially since it's been around for probably 40 years.
These days instead of reel-to-reel or carts it's done via digital audio files and FTP-d or emailed right into the automation system. Nobody local even touches it.
Which is another cause of non-local radio...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Nope, explain this.
»www.verizonwireless.com/pdfs/wel···uide.doc
quote:
FCC Rules And Regulations
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that wireless phones be operated in accordance with FCC rules and regulations and under supervision of the licensee.
Severe punishment can result from failure to comply with the following regulations:
...........
No person shall utter any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.
EDIT
Regarding first amendment rights. Here is a quote from a FCC filing by Verizon.
(OCR may have screwed up some things and bold is by me source: »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···19866994 )
quote:
VII. THE RELIEF PETITIONERS SEEK WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF WIRELESS OPERATORS.
The Commission should also reject Petitioners' invitation to exercise its Title I discretion
to impose common carriage obligations because any such action would violate the First
Amendment. Petitioners argue that Section 202 obligations are needed to protect "new modes of
speech,,,74 but they have the First Amendment issue precisely backward: the non-discrimination
duty they propose would undercut the free speech rights of wireless operators.75 In managing
short code campaigns, wireless operators exercise editorial discretion by choosing to feature
certain content, while refraining from providing other content. Under settled principles, such
activity constitutes expression protected by the First Amendment.76 Because a duty of nondiscrimination
would preclude wireless operators from making editorial judgments and indirectly
burden their interests as speakers, that duty must satisfy searching constitutional review-at least intennediate scrutiny.77 In addition, a court would accord the Commission no Chevron
deference given the presence of a serious constitutional question surrounding its actions.78
footnote 75
quote:
Cf. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (holding that rules requiring broadcasters to provide video content for blind customers were outside the Commission's Title I authority, in part because regulation of content raises serious First Amendment issues); Audio Communications, Inc. Petition for a Declaratory Ruling that the 900 Service Guidelines of US Sprint Communications Co. Violate Section 201(a) and 202(a) of the Communications Act, 8 FCC Rcd 8697, 8700-02, ~~ 30-31 (1993) (noting that First Amendment prohibition does not apply "to business decisions by private entities," and rejecting petitioners' request to exercise Title I jurisdiction in order to impose Section 202 obligations, in part because the challenged action did not "harm First Amendment values," as the petitioners contended).
| |
|
