The FCC is considering expensive and expansive rule changes that could force radio stations in smaller markets, and stations serving specialized audiences, to either cut back or shut down!
The FCC wants to force stations to hire more staff and possibly relocate facilities – two very expensive items in a small station’s limited budget.
If these proposals are adopted, it would be a blow not only to true local radio, but also to new entrepreneurs – often from groups not traditionally found among radio station owners.
Smaller markets have traditionally been a gateway to media ownership because the costs of entry are more reasonable. But at the same time, the margins can be slimmer – and anything that needlessly drives up costs will slam shut an important portal of economic opportunity.
The idea behind these proposals is to both better serve local communities and increase economic opportunity. But however much the purveyors of these proposals believe in their theories, they neglect practical realities.
Download the full MB Docket No. 04-233 at the FCC web site (PDF) or (Word) | Additional information is available at NAB (National Association of Broadcasters)
For instance, one proposal would force radio stations to curtail reliance on labor-saving technology and, instead, force them to pay someone to be on duty any time the station is on the air, day or night. This would be true even when a radio station is receiving programming by satellite, and has monitored computer systems in place to maintain service and notify responsible personnel in those rare instances when a problem might develop.
Another proposal would force many groups of smaller stations that now co-locate their studios and offices regionally to instead maintain separate facilities for each station.
Instead of spending money on programming and other service for the public, station owners would be forced to divert money to needless and duplicative real estate expenses.
The FCC is even considering forcing stations to give away time to any community group that requests it, much like cable systems provide public access channels.
But while cable has dozens, even hundreds of channels from which it can profit, small and niche market stations do not. Free is not really free to those who struggle every day just to keep the electricity flowing, the programming going, and the local news covered.
These proposals come at a time when major operational costs, such as electricity, insurance and taxes are increasing quickly. Such costs, of course, tend to take a proportionally bigger bite out of the budget at smaller market and specialized stations– because it takes just as much electricity for equivalently licensed stations to stay on the air for a million potential listeners, as when the station can, at best, attract ten thousand.
Proponents of the FCC changes appear to be motivated by nostalgia. These proposals seem more suited to the old days when broadcasting was the only electronic game in town – that simpler time before six hundred channels, digital multicasting, the Internet and the MP3 player.
But consumer choices are only going to grow in our multichannel multistreamed media world. Increasingly expensive regulation on one group of competitors, while others are free of it, simply won’t fix problems.
It will instead lead to less service in smaller markets, and less opportunity for diversity in ownership and niche programming. As audiences migrate to less expensively regulated delivery streams, smaller market and niche radio will seem an increasingly less attractive investment.
These proposals ignore that most rational economic actors will respond to increasingly expensive government mandates by either
(1) Cutting back so only their most profitable services and day-parts remain, or by
(2) Getting out of the business once losses start to replace modest profits.
There is no ‘public interest’ in service that is both diminished and less diverse.
The FCC must not let nostalgia and untested theory take precedence over practical realities. It must drop these expensive government mandates from consideration – NOW, before damage is done.
HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO:
The FCC is taking comments on these proposals. You can add your comments to the record. The FCC can only make rule changes based on evidence – and the evidence you submit can make a difference!
By Mail |
By Internet |
Write your |
Send a letter, specifying what the FCC must not do and why. Make sure you place the docket number on top of the letter to be sure it is delivered to the correct office: MB Docket No. 04-233, Comments in Response to Localism Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. |
Visit the |
You can also write to your Senators and Congressman. Tell them that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are threatened. Describe the problematic FCC proposals and the harm they will cause, if they are adopted. |
Download Or using FedEx, UPS, DHL or similar services: |
You must enter 04-233 the box marked Proceeding then complete all the required form entries (such as name and address) and as many of the optional entries as appropriate. You then have two options for presenting comments: (1) Type comments in the text box at the bottom of the web page marked “Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)” Once either typed in or uploaded, press the appropriate button to SEND your comment to the FCC. You will receive a confirmation of submission, usually within a few seconds. Visit the |
Contact information for your Senator is available at http://senate.gov/general/contact_inform Contact information for your Congressman is available at https://forms.house.gov/wyr |
©2008 HelpRadioNow.com | All Rights Reserved
For more information contact:
or