If we knew then what we know now...

How differently do you think the busness would be today?

Would Telecom have been passed?

If so, would there have been as much consolidation?

How differently would the prices have been?

How much more talent and on-air quality would have preserved if we knew what the future held?

"How much more talent and on-air quality would have preserved if we knew what the future held?"

i bet not much. Technology and cheap trumps talent. Satellite formats properly executed (lots of local inserts, news, weather, local calendar stuff, local peoples names, etc) work the very best.

jerry367 said:

Would Telecom have been passed?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. When you go back 20 years and look at the direction the FCC and the Congress was going at the time, there's no question it would have happened. There was a commitment by both parties to modernize broadcast regulation. I remember seeing Al Gore speak many times about the stupidity of having broadcasting regulated by laws that were written before TV was invented.

In the years leading up to the 96 Act, the FCC relaxed the ownership rules several times, and had another proposal ready to go had the Act not been passed. I'm convinced that we'd be in the same situation now even if the 96 Act had not been passed.

What made it inevitable was the over-licensing of the spectrum in the 80s. Now, a company that owned one or two stations in a market saw its share diluted from 20-30% to less than 7%. The same company needed to own more stations to retain the same level of market share it had in the 60s.

At the same time, AM radio was in decline. The FCC was concerned that it could disappear. So the 96 Act required companies that bought additional FM stations also buy AM. That way, they could use the profits from the more popular FM stations to support the money-losing AM stations.

As for consolidation and job loss, both were already taking place before the change in ownership laws. One of the first changes was in engineering. Many stations started outsourcing their engineering needs in the 80s. Instead of having a chief engineer on staff, lots of stations used outside engineering companies. There had been an explosion in LMAs, where a company "managed" non-owned radio stations. The rise in consultants and program suppliers in the 80s also led to replacement of local air staffs with outsiders. Thousands of radio stations were programmed by satellite delivered formats in the 80s and early 90s. Thousands of others had their local formats managed by outside consultants like Lee Abrams. So as I said, I'm convinced that radio was already heading towards operational consolidation long before the 96 Act.

There have been many discussions to re-regulate broadcasting since, and suggestions that the Congress change the ownership rules. All it would take to roll part the ownership portion of the Act would be an act of Congress. But it wouldn't change a thing. Forcing stations to operate under old ownership limits or with minimum staffing requirements would simply lead to thousands of stations going dark. Because it's clear that stations couldn't operate with such restrictions in the 80s.

Much of our discussion at Radio-info is highly influenced and guided by YOUNG people who are fans and "wanna bees". And that is good.

Much of our discussion at Radio-Info is highly influenced and guided by people who are currently active in broadcasting. And that is as it should be.

Here is one of the problems of our effort at discussion. Not enough of the conversation comes from people who have experience in other industries, and from people who have dealt with personnel concepts in other industries. A significant part of our conversation sounds like we think ONLY broadcasting is having these problems that we kick around.

I stand with the comments of TheBigA on this one. Changes in law, changes in social custom and changes in technology have upset industry after industry after industry. There were people who saw what was coming but they were for the most part overwhelmed by the "crowd mentality" that said: Radio is too big and too important to be changed by these outside influences.

Folks who prepared for a lifetime of being a radio announcer/personality/talent have had the rug pulled out from under them.

Folks who prepared for a lifetime of writing computer language code have had the rug pulled out.

Folks who prepared for a lifetime of filling prescriptions and eventually owning the hometown or neighborhood mom-and-pop pharmacy have had the rug pulled.

Folks who prepared for a lifetime of piloting airplanes have sensed the rug is missing.

Folks who prepared for a lifetime of assembling automobiles in Detroit have forgotten what a rug is.

If people in all these other industries couldn't see the change coming in time to drive a stake through the heart of change, why would we fantasize that radio could have?

It all goes back to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. One thing will affect another. Basic physics. The foundations for where radio is now all happened 45 years ago. Even the expansion from AM to FM contributed to consolidation and staff cuts. If Obi-wan Kenobi of Star Wars had been around in the 70s, he would have sensed a disturbance in The Force.

I think some things would have been different. How could they not have been?

Could they have known how the decline of news coverage on radio has been accelerated after '96, there would have been at least some effort to put in safeguards, with minimum standards like those that are STILL IN PLACE for public service. There might be regulations on how much programming could be imported from market to market by multiple station owners.

Remember that the '92 dereg did put some better formats on AM's that were merely simulcasting FM's or running paid religion (remember when it seemed every market had four stations in that format?). I have a hard time believing that '96 helped AM all that much -- it allowed a disproportionate 5:3 ratio of FM:AM ownership in bigger markets, as opposed to '92 which was 2:2. Some chains got out of AM ownership entirely or almost entirely in several markets. This left either one of the "big boys" owning the best AM's and the others languishing in the hands of undercapitalized small owners who couldn't possibly compete for shows or launch anything beyond brokering. Destroying the "middle class" of ownership -- which was historically where most of the innovation came from, not the bulked-up superchains OR the mom and pop's. Not to mention with the few companies that did own 3 AM's, the tendency to protect the flagship (usually a news/talker with Rush) at all costs and put little to nothing into the second and definitely into the third.

And, yes, the Dems were for the big picture '96 Act -- which included a lot more than radio. Bill Clinton later admitted deregulating radio ownership was a mistake. But the drafting of the '96 ownership dereg was played out entirely among the NAB, big chain owners, and the GOP congressional leadership.

FYI - and Al Gore's - television was invented and demonstrated by the end of the 1920s - significantly before the Telecommunications Act of 1934. In fact, the Federal Radio Commission issued the first television station license (W3XK) to Charles Jenkins in 1928.

smedge2006 said:

Could they have known how the decline of news coverage on radio has been accelerated after '96, there would have been at least some effort to put in safeguards, with minimum standards like those that are STILL IN PLACE for public service.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The FCC eliminated news requirements long before 1996. Format specialization began in the 70s, and that's when news coverage on music stations began to disappear. At the same time, there has been an increase in outside news providers. This also began in the 80s. Stations didn't have to employ in-house news staffs. They could get local news from other area suppliers. The number of these suppliers has increased, not decreased. So you're making a generalization that really isn't true.

The fact is that the FCC was trying to get out of the radio regulation business as a result of the Reagan budget cuts in 1984. They didn't have the time to do all the paperwork regarding news standards, public service requirements, or anything else. Their budget had been cut, and Congress was not going to give them the funding necessary to do all this programming police work. They wanted to leave it up to the stations and market forces. That was the Reagan Doctrine. That POV did not change in 1996, and there was no discussion that I've seen in the hearings on the 96 Act that lead me to believe that they wanted to enact any kind of standards for news coverage.

smedge2006 said:

This left either one of the "big boys" owning the best AM's and the others languishing in the hands of undercapitalized small owners who couldn't possibly compete for shows or launch anything beyond brokering.

Click to expand...

Ironically, the “big boys” are the ones who have made the best use of AM frequencies, with companies like Entercom, Cox, and CBS at the forefront of local news coverage. It’s the smaller companies that simply can’t afford the personnel and don’t have the resources to provide the kinds of service you want the government to require.

smedge2006 said:

Destroying the "middle class" of ownership -- which was historically where most of the innovation came from, not the bulked-up superchains OR the mom and pop's.

Click to expand...

The 96 Act didn’t “destroy the middle class.” It EMPOWERED it. It made small players like Clear Channel, founded by a car salesman in San Antonio, bigger than media monoliths like CBS and ABC. In 1996, the biggest fear was that ABC would use its power and resources to buy up all the radio stations and monopolize media. Little did they know that a much smaller company would far outdo anything the “big boys” ever did. Lots of other middle class companies COULD have done the same thing. They chose not to, instead taking the money and running.

Today, there are lots of smaller groups, and they’re all empowered by the ownership rules from 1996. Companies like Greater Media and South Central Communications. These are all very successful, and they don’t own a lot of stations. They also compete well against companies like Clear Channel, Citadel, and Cumulus.

smedge2006 said:

And, yes, the Dems were for the big picture '96 Act -- which included a lot more than radio. Bill Clinton later admitted deregulating radio ownership was a mistake. But the drafting of the '96 ownership dereg was played out entirely among the NAB, big chain owners, and the GOP congressional leadership.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. The 96 Act was the pet project of Clinton’s “technology VP,” Al Gore. He was the one who took the lead on it in the public, and on the Hill. The big chain owners had the most to lose by de-regulation, and the feared the tyranny of the TV networks. The final vote for the Act shows just how popular it was in both parties. Liberals and conservatives supported it. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Bradley, Ted Daschle all voted for it. So did Jesse Helms, Al D’Amato, Al Simpson, and Strom Thurmond. The Senate vote was 81 to 19. The House was even greater: 414 to 16.

I don’t know where you come up with this conspiracy, but this was a bi-partisan bill unlike anything we’ve seen since. The problem with such a bill today is that the parties can’t agree on anything.

SirRoxalot said:

FYI - and Al Gore's - television was invented and demonstrated by the end of the 1920s - significantly before the Telecommunications Act of 1934. In fact, the Federal Radio Commission issued the first television station license (W3XK) to Charles Jenkins in 1928.

Click to expand...

Were there regulations regarding TV in the original 1934 Act? To the best of my knowledge, all of the decisions regarding TV regulation came afterwards.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

If people in all these other industries couldn't see the change coming in time to drive a stake through the heart of change, why would we fantasize that radio could have?

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand what you mean by "drive a stake through the heart of change". Change is inevitable, and what benefits some doesn't always benefit others.

As someone else said, the real problem is the number of stations has increased significantly over the last 25-30 years, but the advertising pie hasn't grown much if at all. Something had to give. As to whether some of these marginal outfits should have gone dark is a whole 'nother thread.

Oldbones said:

Not sure I understand what you mean by "drive a stake through the heart of change". Change is inevitable, and what benefits some doesn't always benefit others.

Click to expand...

The original post raised the question: if we had been able to see then what we know now, could we have prevented change? My point was that industry after industry, profession after profession and craft after craft are all crying the blues about change. Change is, as you say, inevitable. I was trying to make the point that radio is not the only line of business where people are standing around with a deer-in-the-headlights look, asking: "What happened to my career?"

TheBigA said:

SirRoxalot said:

FYI - and Al Gore's - television was invented and demonstrated by the end of the 1920s - significantly before the Telecommunications Act of 1934. In fact, the Federal Radio Commission issued the first television station license (W3XK) to Charles Jenkins in 1928.

Click to expand...

Were there regulations regarding TV in the original 1934 Act? To the best of my knowledge, all of the decisions regarding TV regulation came afterwards.

Click to expand...

From the original Communications Act of 1934:

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 3. For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

(a) "Wire communication" or "communication by wire" means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.

(b) "Radio communication" or "communication by radio" means the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.

It's apparent that Congress intended the FCC would have the power to create channels and services in the elctromagnetic spectrum as technology evolved. While the word "television" wasn't specifically included - probably because it was not yet in common usage - the concept we know as TV was.

You can read the entire act at your leisure at http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/61StatL101/ComAct34.html

Nostradamus also predicted that we'd communicate wirelessly. So what? It's great lawyer-speak, trying to cover all eventualities, in perpetuity.

The point Gore was making is that this law (which was a rewrite of the original 1928 Act) needed a complete re-write, encompassing new technologies that had come about since the 1930s. Regardless of whether or not they knew the device we know as TV was imminent.

So OK, they had language in the original Act that mentioned pictures. That's a far cry from understanding all of the serious regulatory issues related to its use, and that's what Gore was getting at. So forgive his hyperbole.

smedge2006 said:

Could they have known how the decline of news coverage on radio has been accelerated after '96, there would have been at least some effort to put in safeguards, with minimum standards like those that are STILL IN PLACE for public service. There might be regulations on how much programming could be imported from market to market by multiple station owners.

Click to expand...

I was with a music FM in a top 15 market from the early part of the 80's, and as the FCC reduced the requirements for news and such, we reduced our news. The market gained additional news and news talk stations as the best providers of news became more dominant and better in that area. Music stations specialized even more, and new formats came on. That was more than a decade before consolidation.

Remember that the '92 dereg did put some better formats on AM's that were merely simulcasting FM's or running paid religion (remember when it seemed every market had four stations in that format?).

Click to expand...

I remember no such thing. In the top 100 markets, there is an average of less than 2 viable signals per market, and those good day and night signals were already doing one of the talk based formats that still worked on AM. Like now, the rest of the AMs found niche programming from standards to religion to ethnic oferings to fill the day. Consolidation did not affect this much, if at all... the big signals were already owned by the bigger operators.

I have a hard time believing that '96 helped AM all that much -- it allowed a disproportionate 5:3 ratio of FM:AM ownership in bigger markets, as opposed to '92 which was 2:2.

Click to expand...

Most markets have two to three times the fulltime FMs as AMs, and 5 or more times the FMs as viable AMs. Obviously, the station count for each band had something to do with the FCC maximums, which allow for more of the stations that are more numerous.

Some chains got out of AM ownership entirely or almost entirely in several markets. This left either one of the "big boys" owning the best AM's and the others languishing in the hands of undercapitalized small owners who couldn't possibly compete for shows or launch anything beyond brokering.

Click to expand...

Since most markets have only one or two viable AMs, and most of these seldom change hands, you are painting a scenario that is just not right. Hey, markets like DC have zero viable AMs...

Dereg was the most bipartisan legislation most of us have ever seen.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

I was trying to make the point that radio is not the only line of business where people are standing around with a deer-in-the-headlights look, asking: "What happened to my career?"

Click to expand...

Or even more to the point, what happened to said career as one to aspire to, and what happened to those who once might have aspired to it. It's like posting a help-wanted sign and nobody (or at least, nobody under 30) answering it. It's isolating.

TheBigA said:

Nostradamus also predicted that we'd communicate wirelessly. So what? It's great lawyer-speak, trying to cover all eventualities, in perpetuity.

The point Gore was making is that this law (which was a rewrite of the original 1928 Act) needed a complete re-write, encompassing new technologies that had come about since the 1930s. Regardless of whether or not they knew the device we know as TV was imminent.

So OK, they had language in the original Act that mentioned pictures. That's a far cry from understanding all of the serious regulatory issues related to its use, and that's what Gore was getting at. So forgive his hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Lawyer-speak? One could consider it to be far-sighted recognition that technology would evolve over time.

The Radio Act of 1927 wasn't the original. The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) power to regulate telephone, telegraph, and cable companies. The new law declared such companies to be common carriers subject to ICC regulations. The Wireless Ship Act of 1910, followed by the Radio Act of 1912 established similar ICC control over communications in the electromagnetic spectrum and wireless communication.

I believe that Congress understood the regulatory issues related to what would become known as television by 1934. The technology had already been demonstrated in several forms by several inventors. A television station license had been issued. Movies had recently added sound. The idea of radio adding moving pictures was already on the table.

The Communications Act of 1934 served admirably for decades, and established a framework for the allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum and emerging technologies. It was broad enough to allow the FCC to regulate existing services, and provided a mechanism for incorporation of new services. There are a number of underlying principles that are still in force. In fact, we currently operate under "The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996".

Anybody want to bet that the 1996 "amendments" will live as long?

Gore, the "inventor of the Internet", seems to have a penchant for hyperbole. In our current "sound bite" world of news and information, he's hardly alone.

SirRoxalot said:

Lawyer-speak? One could consider it to be far-sighted recognition that technology would evolve over time.

Click to expand...

Far sighted recognition? We're talking about Congress. Don't give them too much credit.

SirRoxalot said:

Anybody want to bet that the 1996 "amendments" will live as long?

Click to expand...

The current atmosphere in Congress can't get anything done, and if that mood stays, there will be no changes for a long time. My biggest concern is that some ideologue will come in and change the law to benefit a political agenda. The top priority in DC right now is FCC regulation of the internet. That is on the front burner, not old technologies like radio or even TV.

Let's not compare Congress in the midst of the Great Depression with the current crop of short-sighted corporate teat-suckers.

Radio people usually forget that radio/TV broadcasting is only a small part of telecommunications. There are many issues that are far more pressing, including Internet access, revised regulation of the telephone industry, expansion of digital technologies, and the explosion of wireless.

The fact is that the FCC was trying to get out of the radio regulation business as a result of the Reagan budget cuts in 1984. They didn't have the time to do all the paperwork regarding news standards, public service requirements, or anything else. Their budget had been cut, and Congress was not going to give them the funding necessary to do all this programming police work. They wanted to leave it up to the stations and market forces. That was the Reagan Doctrine. That POV did not change in 1996, and there was no discussion that I've seen in the hearings on the 96 Act that lead me to believe that they wanted to enact any kind of standards for news coverage.

Click to expand...

Remember this is about what MIGHT have happened had Congress been given the gift of foresight on the effects of '96... not what might or might not have been on the table when it was enacted. Not likely, unless Congressmen had crystal balls, or if they had read the letter from a Texas radio station owner warning of its potential consequences -- which at times reads almost like prophecy.

Yes, the FCC junked news requirements in the 80's, but public affairs requirements remain to this day, judging by all the shows that run at 6 a.m. Sunday morning, so I see no reason they couldn't mandate news if Congress told them to.

I don't know if would have happened or not had things been a bit different.

I don't think the result has been good for the industry overall.

Similar things are happening in other industries.

I think what might have happened is a toned down version of dereg, for example with rules like

* No more than 4 stations in any market, no more than 3 on one band in said market

* If you own the max (say 4) in one market you can't own a station in a next-door embeded market (ie, if you own 4 in NYC, you can't own anything on Long Island - just an example)

* No more than 50 or stations nationwide. Maybe 48 (12 markets).

I think many of the changes we have experienced aren't just because of telco 96 but because of technology. Voice tracking would still exist. That said, it and syndication wouldn't be as big. Delilah wouldn't be on all the Clear Channel stations because they wouldnt own so many AC's, Elvis Duran, same thing. But we would still have syndication, just not so much.

Just my opinion on what might have happened. No-one will ever know.