So non-white listeners are too stupid or too tech-averse to find the content they want except on AM Radio? What an insult!!Some interesting testimony today on Cap Hill about minority interest in AM Radio. Most of the posts here talk about AM being irrelevant for them. But there are groups for whom AM radio is their only source of information and entertainment. I think of WVOX Chicago or WOL in DC as examples. Also the numerous ethnic stations around the country. It's one thing to generalize that AM is all conservative talk, but it's worth pointing out that AM radio is more than that.
MMTC Deems AM Radio 'Especially Significant For Underrepresented Groups.'
The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, in conjunction with ALLvanza, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, National Urban League and OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, have added one more letterwww.insideradio.com
-
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
Car Makes & Models with No AM Band.
- Thread starter DavidEduardo
- Start date
Did you read the article? That's not what it said. The stations I mentioned are historic radio stations that have been serving their minority audiences for over 50 years, before the popularity of FM.
50 years is a long time to adapt!
So you feel that white people are being treated unfairly or held to a different standard?
What are you talking about?
I'm trying to understand your point of view. Who is using the words "stupid" or "tech averse?" I don't see those words in the article I posted.
If you say a particular group can't move forward from 100+ year technology when most of the world has already done so, then the Implication is clear.
I'm not the one saying that. The article quotes representatives of minority groups. (The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, in conjunction with ALLvanza, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, National Urban League and OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates) A lot of these minority groups have had difficulty raising the money to buy FM stations. It has been the view of the FCC that there is a need to promote minority radio ownership. That's what these groups are promoting. No one is saying they're "stupid" or "tech averse." It's more of a financial disadvantage.
Right. And as far as tech, many of these are community-oriented stations. Podcasts need scale to succeed and as such are usually nationally-(or at least regionally) focused.
Being priced out of FM, the service to those communities is on AM.
Almost everything available on AM is also available via streaming. No FM needed.
Okay. So now, you're talking about moving the audience away from the AM station, which would potentially reduce its funding, whether that's from donations or advertising. If the AM station itself gets to a point where it could no longer go on, it would be unlikely to stream---and that community resource would vanish.
However one would need a smart phone with a high speed internet connection. We're talking about financial disadvantage.
Keep in mind the government has equal opportunity mandates on AM & FM that they don't apply to streaming.
Some have concerns about placing mandates on car companies, but no one is repealing mandates on AM or FM.
Well said. This is the thing that many people who find the cost of home Internet service and devices to utilize those services to be insignificant do not understand. For a significant percentage of Americans, cable TV, the Internet and anything other than a basic cellular phone are outside of their budget.
Those folks should look at the percentage of homes that do not have cable and are not using alternative streamed services. And they should check the fact that many Americans are cutting needed healthier food from their purchases due to inflation.
Not everyone has an iPhone just because their friends all have them.
To add: I lived in a rural area for many years (2004-2021), and the bulk of that time was spent without high speed internet, so I couldn't stream even if I wanted to (granted, streaming was less of a thing then).
Even now, there are places even in the Bay Area where cellular service is spotty or nonexistent, so no streaming there, either.
AND, to top it all off, FM radio isn't so great in a number of areas, so AM is usually the only thing that works consistently.
c
Even now, there are places even in the Bay Area where cellular service is spotty or nonexistent, so no streaming there, either.
AND, to top it all off, FM radio isn't so great in a number of areas, so AM is usually the only thing that works consistently.
c
So just to be clear, the government shouldn’t get involved in a system that lets people get buried in medical debt they’ll never get out of because they got sick. The government shouldn’t get involved in ensuring people can have access to potentially lifesaving medications. The government shouldn’t be able to do anything to protect people from being literally blown to bits at schools, supermarkets, concerts, theaters, offices, houses of worship and whatever else I’m forgetting.
But they’re doing the lord’s work when they try to artificially prop up a slowly dying technology by targeting one industry to keep it in their product.
Other countries laugh at us, and they are right to do so.
But they’re doing the lord’s work when they try to artificially prop up a slowly dying technology by targeting one industry to keep it in their product.
Other countries laugh at us, and they are right to do so.
I doubt very much that it will have any effect on the radio industry one way or the other.
All great points. For AM it's a vicious circle: Your broadcast potentially caters to a small sector of people who can't afford other forms of media. Listeners who can't afford other forms of media aren't appealing to advertisers, nor would be in a position to donate, assuming a public station. Any possibility for new listeners would fall under the same category.
New listeners? That's why I said this proposed law won't have any effect on radio.
Going on the assumption that someone settles on listening to AM radio because they can't afford any sort of Internet streaming or smartphone, that could likely apply to someone young or old. Of course that scenario would likely be the only reason someone younger than 55 would bother with AM, and would still not provide any benefit to the survival of AM radio.
As I said, I don't see this proposed law as any benefit to the survival of AM Radio. There is a very specific directive in the law for the GAO to do a study to find other platforms that are as effective as AM. The results of that study could have the effect of killing AM radio.