Pirates..

[nocomradio]

..but Radio is a...well, you know. You don't have to like it. Just accept it.

  And unfortunately, that is the attitude from most station operators.

  I don't agree with lawbreaking, and I don't agree with doing as you please, but from a business standpoint I certainly don't agree with the attitude that if the consumer doesn't like it, they can just accept it. No wonder some folks decide to take matters into their own hands.

 Still, radio owners and personnel complain the loudest when things aren't well, but won't look inward at statements like that. Keep that muzzle pointed directly at your foot and let us know how things work out for you, M'kay?

[NHRadio]

You misunderstand me. Pleasing the customer is good business, and leads to profits IF (and only if) the audience is large enough to be attractive to advertisers.
If the consumer doesn't like it, he tunes out. Ratings drop. So do profits. How, in the name of little green apples, is that shooting myself in the foot? Where you got that I have no idea.

..but Radio is a...well, you know. You don't have to like it. Just accept it.

  And unfortunately, that is the attitude from most station operators.

  I don't agree with lawbreaking, and I don't agree with doing as you please, but from a business standpoint I certainly don't agree with the attitude that if the consumer doesn't like it, they can just accept it. No wonder some folks decide to take matters into their own hands.

 Still, radio owners and personnel complain the loudest when things aren't well, but won't look inward at statements like that. Keep that muzzle pointed directly at your foot and let us know how things work out for you, M'kay?

[nocomradio]

You misunderstand me. Pleasing the customer is good business, and leads to profits IF (and only if) the audience is large enough to be attractive to advertisers.
If the consumer doesn't like it, he tunes out. Ratings drop. So do profits. How, in the name of little green apples, is that shooting myself in the foot? Where you got that I have no idea.

  Maybe I do misunderstand.

  When you made the statement that "if you don't like it, just accept it", I took that to mean that you feel that the consumer (or listener in this case) wasn't valued. That doesn't sound like good business to me at all, and hence, my comment on keeping the muzzle pointed at your foot.

[dumber than a box of hair]

What I think some here on this board forget is that the airwaves are owned by the public -- not the FCC, nor Clear Channel, nor Greater Media, but the public.  You, me -- the public.

The 4,592,771st repeat (yes, I'm keeping count  ) of the same fallacious argument.  No one on this board forgot it, because there are no "airwaves."  One cannot own something that doesn't exist.

Radio signals don't exist until someone turns on a transmitter.  By federal law, only individuals with a license from the government can turn on a transmitter, which means that those individuals are *licensed* to broadcast.  Because the number of frequencies available for broadcast is limited, and because radio signals cross state lines (making them the equivalent of interstate commerce), per the Constitution and the Communications Act the federal government has sole jurisdiction to license their users.  Oversimplified, sure, but that's the gist of it.

So if the African American population wants a radio station to serve them, they have the right (not the privelage, but the right) to demand it.  The same with the disenfrancized WBCN and WFNX listeners.

Go ahead.  Be my guest.  March into the nearest radio station and demand to be put on the air.  See how far you get.

BTW, no one is guaranteed reception of any radio station, nor are they guaranteed that there has to be one radio station with whatever programming they happen to like.  Business people make business decisions to change formats or sell stations all the time and it's their call.  The FCC cannot (per the First Amendment) and will not get involved in programming decisions.

Before FMs were put up for auction, unless I'm mistaken, I believe all one need do was apply for an FM signal, and it would be granted, assuming that you did so within a filing window, and that you weren't put into an MX with other applicants of the signal.  Let's go back to that.  Enough of this highest bidder bu**s**t!

Wrong on multiple counts.  First, the FCC must be persuaded (by a very expensive engineering study) that a frequency can be used in a given location without interfering with other signals.  Once the frequency is added in that location, parties can apply for it, although there's no guarantee that the party which petitioned to add the frequency will get it.  Even if there's only one applicant, that's no guarantee the construction permit will be granted.  Among other things, the applicant must have a viable business plan in place and have some reasonable idea what they're going to do with the station.  They must also meet engineering standards which are a condition of the license and comply with various other regulations relating to tower lighting, Emergency Alert System, and maintenance of a local public file.  It's not nearly as simple as going down to Wal-Mart, coming back with a radio station and plugging it in.

[dumber than a box of hair]

But indeed, Salem is doing nothing with 950. It's esentially a second 590, with similar programming.  It's only hurting them to keep it.  So I think maybe they should just give it up, already, and donate it to "Touch 106."  I'm sure that, with the 950 signal the way it is, if they recieved or could buy it, the folks over at "Touch" would gladly stop broadcasting an illegal signal; all they want is a legal one.

How is that a rediculous idea?

It's ridiculous because it's only your opinion.  You aren't the owner.  You don't hold the license.  Salem does.  Ergo, it's their call.

Touch has a snowball's chance in h*ll of ever getting a license because they have already been cited by the FCC for unlicensed operation.  The character of an applicant for a broadcast license is an issue with the FCC, and someone who is a known lawbreaker doesn't even merit their consideration.  Station licensees who commit crimes put their licenses on the line because of the character issue.  One of the more famous local examples is RKO-General, the former licensee of WRKO(AM), WROR(FM) and WNAC-TV(the old channel 7).  RKO's parent, General Tire & Rubber Company, was ordered to sell all their stations and exit the broadcasting business because the company's officers and directors had been convicted of commercial bribery.

[PirateJohnny]

Your idealistic view of the broadcast industry is flawed.  In a perfect world, there would be enough spectrum available so everybody could have a radio station, and every format imaginable could be available to anyone who wished for it.

You just about described cable/satellite TV.  Look what a mess that industry is in now.

Radio stations have bills to pay.  Electric bills.  Water bills.  Insurance premiums.  Land taxes, rent or mortgage.  Employee payrolls.  Music fees.  Where does that money keep coming from, if you don't have advertisers or supporters?  If you can't pay the bills, you go off the air, plain and simple.  Serving a small niche group of the population is fine and dandy, but one day the lack of $$ return (due to lack of advertiser or supporters support) forces a decision.

[neo911]

What all these people who keep talking about the limited spectrum and use that excuse to justify the manner in which the FCC has licensed and allocate stations, please explain to me how, in several countries and particularly in Europe, the FM band in major cities is literally crammed with stations, from end to end, broadcasting legally?

Here's some samples:

ROME:
87.6, 87.9, 88.1, 88.3, 88.6, 88.9, 89.1, 89.3, 89.5, 89.7, 90.1, 90.3, 90.5, 90.7, 90.9...

ATHENS:
87.5, 87.7, 88.0, 88.3, 88.6, 88.9, 89.2, 89.5, 89.8, 90.1, 90.4, 90.6, 90.9, 91.2, 91.4, 91.6...

ISTANBUL:
87.5, 87.7, 88.0, 88.2, 88.4, 88.6, 88.8, 89.0, 89.2, 89.4, 89.6, 89.8, 90.0, 90.2, 90.4, 90.6...

I should mention that these stations also broadcast with rather high wattage and usually all from the same transmitter farm. 

So how is it that those sorts of allocations work in those countries, but in the United States, we need separation of 0.8 MHz (at least) between most stations in large cities?  How is it that LPFMs, all 10-100 watts of them, will cause "unacceptable interference" to second- and third-adjacent stations? Is there something about the laws of physics in America that is different from the laws of physics in these locations above?

I've heard the same argument in the past about analog TV and digital TV, and how a supposed advantage of digital TV was that stations could operate on adjacent frequencies, which was "not possible" with analog.

I beg to differ.  In those above cities and many others, the entire VHF and UHF band was, and still is, packed from end-to-end with stations.  In Italy, you have every VHF and UHF frequency in just about every region of the country occupied by a digital station, since they completed their switchover.  Other countries are still in the process of switching over, and you see the analog VHF and UHF dial with stations, all adjacent to each other... on channel 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, etc.  All at high power in most cases and again usually mostly from the same transmitter farms.

Here's the list for Rome, for instance: http://www.otgtv.it/lista.php?code=RM00&posto=Roma

I find it quite incredible that planes aren't falling out of the sky and consumers aren't returning their radio and television receivers back to the store in droves due to all this unacceptable interference!  And that broadcasters are putting up with this!  (I'm being sarcastic, of course) 

[dumber than a box of hair]

What all these people who keep talking about the limited spectrum and use that excuse to justify the manner in which the FCC has licensed and allocate stations, please explain to me how, in several countries and particularly in Europe, the FM band in major cities is literally crammed with stations, from end to end, broadcasting legally?

Here are some of the reasons:

1) The examples you cite are in countries much smaller geographically than the US, with generally higher population density.
2) Not all those stations are privately-owned.  Many are government-owned.
3) Most of the stations in Europe run much lower power than US stations, and if I'm not mistaken also use lower frequency deviation, meaning they have smaller bandwidth requirements.  In addition, a few countries such as Italy allocate stations using 50kHz spacing instead of the 200kHz used in North America.
4) Trying to listen to FM stations in some large cities in Europe is a nightmare.  The stations may all be legal, but they topple over each other due to FM's capture effect, and therefore reception of some stations is unreliable even in what is supposed to be their primary coverage area.
5) The frequency allocation schemes in other countries weren't necessarily developed with private businesses in mind, stemming from a time when most broadcast stations in Europe were government-owned and the government could put the stations on whatever frequencies they wanted.  In the US the allocation scheme was heavily tilted in favor of private businesses, specifically at keeping frequencies as clear as possible within a reasonable range of the communities the stations are licensed to.  (IOW, if the government was going to allocate frequencies to private businesses, it's entirely reasonable for those businesses to be able to stay in business by having a frequency mostly clear of interference from other stations.)

[surfin bird]

We live in a society of privileges. Not rights. Radio included. Black people don't have a right to a format anymore than a white person does.



Welcome to the brave new world my friend.

[raccoonradio]

And welcome to the country that has freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and the free market where a radio station can choose the format it wants and thinks will do well with no government
oversee re: format. Where an alternative newspaper that embraces the "Occupy" movement can sell off their station to...Clear Channel (thus giving the paper's owner $14.5 million reasons to be happy, all with Washington's pic on them). CC thinks they can make money with it. Mindich just did, and quite well, by selling it.