And I think the current rules allow for that. AFAIK, the main requirement is that you can receive the actual air signal in the studio. Because you have to monitor it and know when you're off the air.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Main Studio Rule...
- Thread starter KXA
- Start date
And I think the current rules allow for that. AFAIK, the main requirement is that you can receive the actual air signal in the studio. Because you have to monitor it and know when you're off the air.
PTBoardOp94
Walk of Fame Participant
Yes. There has not been a requirement for the "main studio" to be in the CoL for decades. Going back to the 80s, a station could locate its main studio anywhere within its 70 dBu contour (FM stations). After the Communications Act of 96, the rule was loosened further that a station could locate its main studio anywhere within the 70 dBu contour of any station sharing the same CoL, or within 25 miles of the center of the CoL, whichever was further.
I find that a substantial number of stations do not meet the letter of the current rules regarding staffing at the main studio, because they are often not open during "customary business hours." The minimum "two employees" are either out doing their job, or work hours which do not line up with "customary business hours." Lots of operations where you have a sales guy and the owner/operator, or a sales guy and a morning DJ.
Not talking about that, and yes, I'm aware of the rule. I was addressing the ability to locate a "main studio" well outside of the 70dBu contour. Especially in a rural community with a station what has good elevation, that could be the <60dBu contour. In my example, that's a real case. Or, let's say I have a station in a community well outside the 50dBu contour, and want to combine business/studio locations in a completely different state.
vchimpanzee
Walk of Fame Participant
The actual daytime signal.
I know of at least one case and I'm sure there are many others. WAVO runs on hamster power at night from a transmitter in Rock Hill. Its studios are on the north side of Charlotte, a long way outside the nighttime range.
vchimpanzee
Walk of Fame Participant
Back in 1992, a 78-year-old man whose format seemed to target people his age was planning to do just that. His studios were old and the equipment was obviously in bad shape. On Christmas Day he was going off the air for the day and didn't realize it would be his last time. I don't know what ever happened to the mall plan. The studio and tower came down and a restaurant and a strip mall went up. And the strip mall just came down for a road relocation.
Jonathan7157
Frequent Participant
I believe that the FCC repealing this rule will be bad for local news in small cities, as Sinclair thinks "small market news doesn't matter", and only looks into the political news and not any other local news. Some say the current FCC wants to eliminate this rule all together. When Sinclair merges with Tribune, I think, unlike other mergers, things will change in a few weeks. Cuts for biased reasons, closing studios and moving them somewhere out of the market, etc.
joebtsflk1
Star Participant
There's no agency, as far as I know, that mandates the minimum number of business hours for a daily newspaper. Seems like much ado about nothing to me. Whether or not to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, now there's a debate that could go on forever...
Andy Travis
Leading Participant
Would anyone who's in support of repealing this rule completely instead of looking at waivers care to justify how a station that sold for 9.5 million got a "hardship waiver" to be operated from 2,000 miles to the west?
And then please explain to us why having this happen in a market of over 1 million listeners is beneficial to them?
And then please explain to us why having this happen in a market of over 1 million listeners is beneficial to them?
Where is the law that demands that radio station groups lease expensive downtown real estate? Most do, because it makes business sense to be in the same area as the local agencies they deal with. If iheart wanted to close every studio (replacing it with a small office with someone to babysit the public file), WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT? Everyone is insisting that the day after this passes, if it does, iHeart, Cumulus, CBS and everyone else will close every one of their offices and studios. Why haven't they already?
joebtsflk1
Star Participant
I assume we're talking about one of those Christian national broadcasters. The listeners don't care if there is much of a local presence. Is such a hardship waiver for the national broadcaster fair to a local Christian broadcaster that has to maintain a local studio? No it isn't.
So, why have a main studio rule? Let the listener marketplace decide whether they want a main studio or office within the listening area.
So, why have a main studio rule? Let the listener marketplace decide whether they want a main studio or office within the listening area.
Andy Travis
Leading Participant
If you can pay 9.5 million for a radio station, you're not experiencing hardship. Pick one. The waiver system exists. Why toss it out the window when it's already proven even that system is exploited?
I know a lot of K-Love listeners, and not one who has ever said "I want to go down and see their studio". The only real dispute is whether they need to pay somebody to babysit a public file. There's no requirement to originate ANY programming from the "main studio". This is why it doesn't matter in the case of the national religious broadcaster, and also means that there won't be a mass closure of radio studios coast to coast among commercial broadcasters.
Andy Travis
Leading Participant
That is not the dispute whatsoever.
The dispute is - should a company or non profit that can afford a multi million dollar radio station be allowed to lie to the FCC and claim "hardship" to avoid any presence in the market?
I notice everyone on this thread also avoids what it might do to drive up the cost of signals and construction permits. When a local broadcaster is up against a corporation that can afford to literally buy anything and use it as a repeater, localism does suffer.
Point me to one rule change that has resulted in increased diversity of programming, localism, or increased job opportunities in broadcasting.
The dispute is - should a company or non profit that can afford a multi million dollar radio station be allowed to lie to the FCC and claim "hardship" to avoid any presence in the market?
I notice everyone on this thread also avoids what it might do to drive up the cost of signals and construction permits. When a local broadcaster is up against a corporation that can afford to literally buy anything and use it as a repeater, localism does suffer.
Point me to one rule change that has resulted in increased diversity of programming, localism, or increased job opportunities in broadcasting.
Last edited:
Point to me all of the formal legal filings you've made to the FCC to challenge any of their rule changes.
Look: Our only obligation is to follow the rules. If localism suffers, that's not my job. I'm not in the localism police.
Obviously the FCC is not in the job opportunities business either. Contrary to what their current leader says.
Andy Travis
Leading Participant
So your position is "not my problem?"
Don't you have some sort of standards?
Don't you have some sort of standards?
The Sinclair stations that I've seen spend a lot on local news. A few even have a local investigative unit.
Why don't you answer MY question first?
Have you filed any legal challenges to any FCC rule or license application?
I mean, if it's SUCH a BIG problem, what have YOU done about it? Besides posting on a message board.
Andy Travis
Leading Participant
Your snide sarcasm aside, I have in fact.
I'm not going to reveal my identity on here - nor have I heard of "The Big A" and his grand accomplishments in the industry. But yes, I have.
And I'm not operating under the illusion that anyone in the current FCC cares. There has never been the political will or benefit to stand up to the NAB, NRB or Clear Channel. The current party in control of the agency believes in increased deregulation regardless of industry or effect. They will ignore valid questions raised in comments.
So yes, it's probably inevitable and there's not much that can be done to convince the agency otherwise with lobbyists and interest groups having the ear of Pai and Reilly. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to be doing. In the same way, the current EPA will probably ignore the numerous comments I make regarding issues of environmental safety and protection of the waterways in my region. Because other people have their ear, and those people are regarded as more valuable/legitimate than an independent broadcaster from someplace most of these people couldn't find on a map.
Why don't you explain to me why the waiver system wouldn't work for this issue, or address the abuse of them on the noncommercial side (with tax exemptions by the way.) It amazes me you seem to think it's not an issue.
I'm not going to reveal my identity on here - nor have I heard of "The Big A" and his grand accomplishments in the industry. But yes, I have.
And I'm not operating under the illusion that anyone in the current FCC cares. There has never been the political will or benefit to stand up to the NAB, NRB or Clear Channel. The current party in control of the agency believes in increased deregulation regardless of industry or effect. They will ignore valid questions raised in comments.
So yes, it's probably inevitable and there's not much that can be done to convince the agency otherwise with lobbyists and interest groups having the ear of Pai and Reilly. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to be doing. In the same way, the current EPA will probably ignore the numerous comments I make regarding issues of environmental safety and protection of the waterways in my region. Because other people have their ear, and those people are regarded as more valuable/legitimate than an independent broadcaster from someplace most of these people couldn't find on a map.
Why don't you explain to me why the waiver system wouldn't work for this issue, or address the abuse of them on the noncommercial side (with tax exemptions by the way.) It amazes me you seem to think it's not an issue.
Last edited:
The market itself has always contributed to diversity. When there is a significant opportunity to both serve an un-served or under-served audience group and to make a profit doing so, then the diversity you talk about gets enhanced.
Localism is a concept that even the FCC has not understood since they brought it to prominence in the 30'a. On one side, they allowed high power clear channel stations that could be heard in twenty, thirty states or more. On the other, they created a class of station, Class IV, that could only serve an area that was smaller than the average US county.
Fast forward to today, and "localism" to most users of social media is "anyone in my FaceBook group of friends". Someone can be local, yet physically thousands of miles away.
Local traffic is now best served with dashboard or smartphone apps. Local weather is best obtained from other apps. Information on sports scores is instantly available online. The role of radio, particularly, has been changed as people now have much local information available on demand; folks with no interest in sports don't need to look for such data just as folks who don't care about traffic don't have to endure frequent reports on the radio.
The myth of localism, long sustained by Sunday morning shows and newscasts at times that there was little interest in news, started disappeared decades ago. Stations that cleared those elements out of prime hours found listenership increased... FCC enforced localism was a negative to listeners.
- Status