Say Goodbye To Your Local TV And Radio Stations

[ZiprHead]

The FCC just ended a decades-old rule designed to keep TV and radio under local control

Federal regulators have voted to eliminate a longstanding rule covering radio and television stations, in a move that could ultimately reshape the nation's media landscape.

The regulation, which was first adopted almost 80 years ago, requires broadcasters to have a physical studio in or near the areas where they have a license to transmit TV or radio signals. Known as the "main studio rule," the regulation ensured that residents of a community could have a say in their local broadcast station's operations.

 

[LordKiran]

The FCC just ended a decades-old rule designed to keep TV and radio under local control

Federal regulators have voted to eliminate a longstanding rule covering radio and television stations, in a move that could ultimately reshape the nation's media landscape.

The regulation, which was first adopted almost 80 years ago, requires broadcasters to have a physical studio in or near the areas where they have a license to transmit TV or radio signals. Known as the "main studio rule," the regulation ensured that residents of a community could have a say in their local broadcast station's operations.

Don't worry, people will care when they end net neutrality next.

 

[Playball40]

This rule was antiquated. Radio delivery does not have to be from a specific location anymore - and this rule was very arbitrary. Most stations still operate to a designated geographical area but to say that just because you have a license to air in Powdonk, CA you must have a PHYSICAL STUDIO there is really not necessary. It's costly and is really an unfair burden on radio providers.

If you think residents don't still have a say in what's being aired just isn't true. Not to mention, radio advertisers continue to be primarily market specific.

The FCC just ended a decades-old rule designed to keep TV and radio under local control

Federal regulators have voted to eliminate a longstanding rule covering radio and television stations, in a move that could ultimately reshape the nation's media landscape.

The regulation, which was first adopted almost 80 years ago, requires broadcasters to have a physical studio in or near the areas where they have a license to transmit TV or radio signals. Known as the "main studio rule," the regulation ensured that residents of a community could have a say in their local broadcast station's operations.

 

[ZiprHead]

This rule was antiquated. Radio delivery does not have to be from a specific location anymore - and this rule was very arbitrary. Most stations still operate to a designated geographical area but to say that just because you have a license to air in Powdonk, CA you must have a PHYSICAL STUDIO there is really not necessary. It's costly and is really an unfair burden on radio providers.

If you think residents don't still have a say in what's being aired just isn't true. Not to mention, radio advertisers continue to be primarily market specific.

The FCC just ended a decades-old rule designed to keep TV and radio under local control

Federal regulators have voted to eliminate a longstanding rule covering radio and television stations, in a move that could ultimately reshape the nation's media landscape.

The regulation, which was first adopted almost 80 years ago, requires broadcasters to have a physical studio in or near the areas where they have a license to transmit TV or radio signals. Known as the "main studio rule," the regulation ensured that residents of a community could have a say in their local broadcast station's operations.

This is the final stake in the heart of the process of destroying independent media that was begun with the 96 telecommunications deregulation act. This will result in monopoly control of the media.

 

[Patooka]

Sinclair Broadcast Group must have a massive boner right about now. This is going to affect where I live too, thanks to our Government relaxing media regulations in September.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does this let Russia in?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does this let Russia in?

I thought they already were.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does this let Russia in?

I thought they already were.

I wrote that half-asleep after midnight, so I can only guess what I meant. I guess I meant something about the wording of the change and if it is vague enough to allow control by a foreign entity since the control is no longer local OR is there some kind of control by an entity in the US in the regulation...Maybe I am not making sense and need to read the regulation to ask a more appropriately worded question.

 

[Playball40]

This rule was antiquated. Radio delivery does not have to be from a specific location anymore - and this rule was very arbitrary. Most stations still operate to a designated geographical area but to say that just because you have a license to air in Powdonk, CA you must have a PHYSICAL STUDIO there is really not necessary. It's costly and is really an unfair burden on radio providers.

If you think residents don't still have a say in what's being aired just isn't true. Not to mention, radio advertisers continue to be primarily market specific.

The FCC just ended a decades-old rule designed to keep TV and radio under local control

This is the final stake in the heart of the process of destroying independent media that was begun with the 96 telecommunications deregulation act. This will result in monopoly control of the media.

This isn't going to change squat - the independent media was dead LOOOOONG before this.

- - - Updated - - -

Sinclair Broadcast Group must have a massive boner right about now. This is going to affect where I live too, thanks to our Government relaxing media regulations in September.

How? How do you think this is going to change anything where you live? Most of these so called 'studios of license' were little more than executive suites already.

 

[Playball40]

Here is a good article on the illusion that was the main studio rule.

http://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/0004/hasta-la-vista-main-studio-rule/340672

 

[ZiprHead]

Here is a good article on the illusion that was the main studio rule.

http://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/0004/hasta-la-vista-main-studio-rule/340672

That's a story about breaking the rules.

A station that shall remain nameless has rented a back room of another station licensed to the same town for 10 years, yet has never broadcast one word from that studio or even had a real manager stop by. The station was running as a rimshot to another town 30 miles away. They would bring in a console to pass the state alternative inspection program to keep the FCC away then remove it as soon as the inspection was over. They used the secretary of the local station as a so called manager of the renting station. A unique situation? Not in the least.

Because many are breaking the rule, we should just do away with it? Perhaps firmer enforcement would be a better idea.

 

[dismal]

buh bye.

 

[SimpleDon]

Here is a good article on the illusion that was the main studio rule.

http://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/0004/hasta-la-vista-main-studio-rule/340672

Just because the rule was largely ineffective is no reason to get rid of it. This logic is illogical. To belabor what should be an obvious point, we still have murders, does your logic mean we should get rid of the laws against murder?

The intent of the local ownership rule is still valid, to prevent the concentration of thought and ideas to a progressively fewer number of radio and television stations and in the fewer number of people who can present their ideas. As we see with the Sinclar group of extremists. What the relatively ineffectiveness of the rule should lead to is finding a more effective means of accomplishing the prevention of the concentration of the radio and the television stations into fewer and fewer hands.

 

[Playball40]

Here is a good article on the illusion that was the main studio rule.

http://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/0004/hasta-la-vista-main-studio-rule/340672

Just because the rule was largely ineffective is no reason to get rid of it. This logic is illogical. To belabor what should be an obvious point, we still have murders, does your logic mean we should get rid of the laws against murder?

The intent of the local ownership rule is still valid, to prevent the concentration of thought and ideas to a progressively fewer number of radio and television stations and in the fewer number of people who can present their ideas. As we see with the Sinclar group of extremists. What the relatively ineffectiveness of the rule should lead to is finding a more effective means of accomplishing the prevention of the concentration of the radio and the television stations into fewer and fewer hands.

That ship sailed with the deregulation long ago. Seriously. The main studio rule did NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to ensure the content was locally determined. It's unfortunate, but true. Content is controlled by the advertisers. That is how radio stays alive - if right wing propaganda crap is what is being played it's because that is what people want to hear (and advertisers make a return). The days of it being about the music, the content, the community...are long gone.

There is a difference between laws that protect people and rules put into effect that largely no longer apply.

Why do you think small, local owned stations (especially AM stations) are failing? How would you recommend saving them? Do you really think it's because of a rule that was just eliminated last month?

 

[ZiprHead]

if right wing propaganda crap is what is being played it's because that is what people want to hear (and advertisers make a return). The days of it being about the music, the content, the community...are long gone.

That's not entirely true. It took many years before Fox News turned a profit. Sinclair Broadcasting seems to feel that propagandizing is more important than profits.

I listen to Randi Rhodes daily. She's been big on this subject for many years, even speaking to Bill Clinton on the topic. She's told of several high ranking local liberal content stations that were bought out just to have their content replaced with content that left them low in the ratings. There is definitely more than profit motivations in this industry. This is becoming a propaganda industry.

 

[Playball40]

if right wing propaganda crap is what is being played it's because that is what people want to hear (and advertisers make a return). The days of it being about the music, the content, the community...are long gone.

That's not entirely true. It took many years before Fox News turned a profit. Sinclair Broadcasting seems to feel that propagandizing is more important than profits.

I listen to Randi Rhodes daily. She's been big on this subject for many years, even speaking to Bill Clinton on the topic. She's told of several high ranking local liberal content stations that were bought out just to have their content replaced with content that left them low in the ratings. There is definitely more than profit motivations in this industry. This is becoming a propaganda industry.

Honestly Pai's vote NEXT MONTH is certainly more alarming (and beneficial to Sinclair) than this elimination. And although I agree that Sinclair (and Pai's) intention are egregious, I do not believe that is the case for all radio. How to stop them? I just don't know.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said he has circulated a media ownership item for a vote at the November meeting that would achieve major broadcast deregulation.

It would eliminate the newspaper-broadcast crossownership rules, the radio-TV crossownership rule, eliminate the eight-voices test for duopolies, eliminate the attribution rules for joint sales agreements, concluding they serve the public interest, and “finally, finally,” the chairman said, establish an incubator program for new, diverse entrants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the final stake in the heart of the process of destroying independent media that was begun with the 96 telecommunications deregulation act. This will result in monopoly control of the media.

Yes, but it's not local control per se that's the issue. Whether the station has a studio here or not is irrelevant, it's where the orders come from that matters.

What I would like to see:

Nobody can own competing media sources. You can have one radio station per area, or one TV station or one newspaper. You can't have any of these if you operate a satellite TV or radio. You can have an internet presence that is clearly the on-line version of your other presence but not one that competes with your other presence.

Also, news companies (anybody that produces things described as news, whether that's their primary job or not) could only be owned by news companies (subject to the same restrictions as above) or by individuals. Companies could not buy shares. Mutual funds would be permitted to but such shares would be non-voting.

I don't give a hoot where your operations are based. The important issue is to maintain competition.

 

[Ford]

I don't give a hoot where your operations are based. The important issue is to maintain competition.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

This rule is rooted in the idea that a local broadcast station exists to serve the local community. When a train derails or there's a tornado or a chemical spill in the city of license, the station has an obligation to serve that community at that time. Everything else is secondary.

That's the bargain they signed when they bought the broadcast license in that town. They got a 100 thousand watt signal, a tower, and a facility on the promise that when shit hit the fan, they'd stop playing music or syndicated talk shows and serve the community. A broadcast license is a license to do business, but there are conditions that come along with it.

When 9/11 happened, I got to see this first hand. That morning I went to work, and we'd stopped being an outlet that played music and had entertaining morning shows. Everything fell away and we were a CBS News affiliate. Our job was to present information to the public in the most objective way possible, to coordinate public resources as best we could, and to serve the public.

Money? That was not a concern. Our management went to our advertisers and said - in effect - "we're sorry about your commercials, but we're not going to be running them until we're done dispensing our duty to the people that own our airwaves. If you don't like it, you can fuck right off."

I, and a lot of people I work with, take this responsibility as serious as cancer. Yeah, most of the time we're entertainers, but when the rubber hits the road we're public servants.

Removing the home studio rule cuts us off from our community. Not directly, to be sure, but it says to companies like iHeartRadio (and they don't) that there's no reason to have anyone in the city of license anymore. That the station in (fill in your town) no longer has an obligation to that place. That the only thing that matters is the bottom line on a spread sheet at the corporate office in New York or wherever the company is based. Abandoning this rule takes the local station away from the locality. Whether the signal is located in Los Angeles or Terra Haute, it belongs to that community and should serve that community, not some bank account in Manhattan.

This is the core of our broadcast model since the early 20th Century...that the airwaves are owned by the public, and if you want to catch a ride on one you have to agree to serve the owners at some level.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Preventing monopoly/concentration of stations into fewer hands

This is the final stake in the heart of the process of destroying independent media that was begun with the 96 telecommunications deregulation act. This will result in monopoly control of the media.

The intent of the local ownership rule is still valid, to prevent the concentration of thought and ideas to a progressively fewer number of radio and television stations and in the fewer number of people who can present their ideas. As we see with the Sinclar group of extremists. What the relatively ineffectiveness of the rule should lead to is finding a more effective means of accomplishing the prevention of the concentration of the radio and the television stations into fewer and fewer hands.

There is an effective way to prevent concentration: A progressive fee system by which owners would have to pay higher fees for additional licenses, or additional frequencies, or additional stations.

I.e., for each additional license (frequency or station), the fee increases. So that after a certain accumulation of licenses (frequencies/stations), the fees become so high that it's no longer profitable to acquire more of them. So a limit is imposed on the total number one owner acquires, and this is set by a market pricing mechanism which reduces the incentive to acquire more.

So the result is more owners and less concentration.

 

[Playball40]

But they ALREADY weren't broadcasting from the main studio anyway. You don't think that a station broadcasting from NYC is capable of carrying news in Poughkeepsie?

I don't give a hoot where your operations are based. The important issue is to maintain competition.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

This rule is rooted in the idea that a local broadcast station exists to serve the local community. When a train derails or there's a tornado or a chemical spill in the city of license, the station has an obligation to serve that community at that time. Everything else is secondary.

That's the bargain they signed when they bought the broadcast license in that town. They got a 100 thousand watt signal, a tower, and a facility on the promise that when shit hit the fan, they'd stop playing music or syndicated talk shows and serve the community. A broadcast license is a license to do business, but there are conditions that come along with it.

When 9/11 happened, I got to see this first hand. That morning I went to work, and we'd stopped being an outlet that played music and had entertaining morning shows. Everything fell away and we were a CBS News affiliate. Our job was to present information to the public in the most objective way possible, to coordinate public resources as best we could, and to serve the public.

Money? That was not a concern. Our management went to our advertisers and said - in effect - "we're sorry about your commercials, but we're not going to be running them until we're done dispensing our duty to the people that own our airwaves. If you don't like it, you can fuck right off."

I, and a lot of people I work with, take this responsibility as serious as cancer. Yeah, most of the time we're entertainers, but when the rubber hits the road we're public servants.

Removing the home studio rule cuts us off from our community. Not directly, to be sure, but it says to companies like iHeartRadio (and they don't) that there's no reason to have anyone in the city of license anymore. That the station in (fill in your town) no longer has an obligation to that place. That the only thing that matters is the bottom line on a spread sheet at the corporate office in New York or wherever the company is based. Abandoning this rule takes the local station away from the locality. Whether the signal is located in Los Angeles or Terra Haute, it belongs to that community and should serve that community, not some bank account in Manhattan.

This is the core of our broadcast model since the early 20th Century...that the airwaves are owned by the public, and if you want to catch a ride on one you have to agree to serve the owners at some level.