Big Business Monopolizing AM & FM Radio?

[Desert_Ear]

Duhhh!

http://ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1

[radioranch]

> Duhhh!
>
http://> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>

Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations.  The giant corporations own about 20% of them.  Nationallly, that is one helluva lot less concentration than the cable, telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper business.

Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse.  Unless you live in a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper.  Mostly likely you have one cable system.  

Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best facilities.  So do the big cable, TV and newspaper companies.  

I own one of the 13,000 radio stations.  When I buy my second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?

[SuperSound]

I'm still a fan of the old media concentration rules: 12 of each, AM, FM, TV. That was raised from 7 of each.
I believe media concentration has not been generally good for radio.
Upping your ownership from one station to two would not make you part of the monopolizing process, it would make you a group owner. Congrats!

> > Duhhh!
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations.  The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them.  Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse.  Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper.  Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.  
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities.  So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.  
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations.  When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>

[dbdigital]

> > Duhhh!
> >
> http://>
> ct.pbinews.com/rd/cts?d=244-2180-56-26888-9101-19270-0-0-0-1
>
> >
>
> Let's see, there are 13,000 local radio stations.  The giant
> corporations own about 20% of them.  Nationallly, that is
> one helluva lot less concentration than the cable,
> telephone, television, and for that matter daily newspaper
> business.
>
> Locally, radio is absurdly more diverse.  Unless you live in
> a Top 5 market, you have one daily newspaper.  Mostly likely
> you have one cable system.  
>
> Yes, I know the big companies own the biggest and best
> facilities.  So do the big cable, TV and newspaper
> companies.  
>
> I own one of the 13,000 radio stations.  When I buy my
> second, will I be part of the monopolizing process?
>

Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media giants is out of control.

For example, in L.A., there about 34 commercial FM stations.  Of these, only two are owned by local companies the rest are in the hands of a half dozen media congloms whose corporate offices are nowhere near California. And I'm not even talking about the AM and television stations they own.

And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting their competitiveness?  Give me a break.

db

[Tom_Desmond]

> Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in my
> neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few media
> giants is out of control.

My observation from here in the Dallas area matches yours for Los Angeles.  Yeah, there are locally owned stations even in the major markets -- but they tend to be on the weakest, most limited signals.  When one looks at the AM and FM signals that can really cover the entirety of a large or medium market, these are overwhelmingly in the hands of the media giants.

> And now they whine about how the ownership caps are hurting
> their competitiveness?  Give me a break.

Agreed...it is complete nonsense.  Instead of looking for scapegoats for their own failings, maybe the big groups should instead look in the mirror and consider the ways in which they could operate the stations they already own in a manner that will do a better job of appealing to local listeners.

And when I read the argument that allowing the big groups to own 12 stations in markets that have 75 or more stations would lead to undue concentration, I just want to throw up.  Yeah, they'll own all the 100 kw FMs in the heart of town, and leave someone else to operate the 6 kw station in the most distant suburb...and they'll claim that the existence of the latter station (covering maybe 5% of the market's population) somehow means that the market is still competitive.  In fact, they conveniently ignore the fact that in that market that has 75 signals, somewhere around a third are typically competitive "full facility" stations, with the rest being suburban rimshot FMs or low powered AMs.

[dbdigital]

> > Well, I can't speak for the rurals and small towns but in
> my
> > neck of the woods, Los Angeles, the concentration and
> > consolidation of radio stations in the hands of a few
> media
> > giants is out of control.
>
> My observation from here in the Dallas area matches yours
> for Los Angeles.  Yeah, there are locally owned stations
> even in the major markets -- but they tend to be on the
> weakest, most limited signals.  When one looks at the AM and
> FM signals that can really cover the entirety of a large or
> medium market, these are overwhelmingly in the hands of the
> media giants.
>
> > And now they whine about how the ownership caps are
> hurting
> > their competitiveness?  Give me a break.
>
> Agreed...it is complete nonsense.  Instead of looking for
> scapegoats for their own failings, maybe the big groups
> should instead look in the mirror and consider the ways in
> which they could operate the stations they already own in a
> manner that will do a better job of appealing to local
> listeners.
>
> And when I read the argument that allowing the big groups to
> own 12 stations in markets that have 75 or more stations
> would lead to undue concentration, I just want to throw up.
> Yeah, they'll own all the 100 kw FMs in the heart of town,
> and leave someone else to operate the 6 kw station in the
> most distant suburb...and they'll claim that the existence
> of the latter station (covering maybe 5% of the market's
> population) somehow means that the market is still
> competitive.  In fact, they conveniently ignore the fact
> that in that market that has 75 signals, somewhere around a
> third are typically competitive "full facility" stations,
> with the rest being suburban rimshot FMs or low powered AMs.
>

That is true.  The two stations I mentioned are about 5kw each with limited coverage while the others are in the 50kw range.

Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of all the major cities.  These conglomorates won't be content until they own it all.  And the FCC seems equally content to roll over, play dead and let it happen.

Actually it's more a case of the FCC fiddling by being overly preoccupied with indecency issues (and, yes, fooling themselves into thinking that their is fair-market competition) while our so-called 'public airwaves' is being consumed.

db

[Josh C.]

I'd go with the following in each market: 2 FM's, 2 AM's, 1 TV.  Five outlets in a market is, in my opinion, actually being generous.

I would also redraw the maps in terms of market boundaries.  Some of them are just ridiculous (i.e. Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, MI being separate markets).

______________

http://theradioblog.blogspot.com

[KJCB]

> That is true.  The two stations I mentioned are about 5kw
> each with limited coverage while the others are in the 50kw
> range.
>
> Undoubtedly what's happening in L.A. and Dallas is true of
> all the major cities.  These conglomorates won't be content
> until they own it all.  And the FCC seems equally content to
> roll over, play dead and let it happen.
>
> Actually it's more a case of the FCC fiddling by being
> overly preoccupied with indecency issues (and, yes, fooling
> themselves into thinking that their is fair-market
> competition) while our so-called 'public airwaves' is being
> consumed.

You can't really blame the conglomerates - any of us would want to own as close to 100% of any market. It's the FCC's and Congresses' job to maintain our public interests, since they work for us; the Mays family does not. As much as corporate radio may bother me, let's face it as well; I've been in both LA and Dallas recently and both, like every other major market, are corporate in all ways. How many corner delis do you have any more?

[Shawman]

McDonalds's owns too many restuarants, Starbucks has too many coffee shops, Wal Mart has too many discount stores, where are all the mom and pop movie channels? In Akron Ohio there are 3 radio groups I can buy advertsing from.. but if I want to advertise in a daily newspaper, I have 1 choice. Sounds like the Newspaper industry has a much bigger monopoly. Make sure there are 3 daily papers in each of the top 100 markets, then worry about radio!

Edited by Shawman on 03/08/06 01:27 PM.

[SirRoxalot]

Please remember that the FCC tried to cut ownership limits and got their hand spanked by the federal courts. It will require legislation in Congress that can withstand a court challenge to rein in the conglomerates. The FCC can't do it by themselves.