Crushing the Little Guys

[XRQKFM]

A Little History About The NAB
BY
Scott Woolley, 09.06.04

In 1999 a wave of novice broadcasters tried to start several thousand new "low-power" FM radio stations, fledgling outfits that would fill gaps in the FM radio band. One group sought a license to air Baptist homilies in Connecticut, another for jazz in Oklahoma, another for Vietnamese talk shows in Minnesota.

Enter the National Association of Broadcasters. Radio lobbyists descended on the Federal Communications Commission, first persuading it to scale back the sweeping plans for new FM radio stations and then turning to Congress for still more relief. The NAB argued that even dinky nonprofits broadcasting at 100 watts or less would drown out existing FM radio stations. Allowing even the neutered FCC plan to proceed would "threaten to disintegrate the U.S. radio environment into chaos," the group said.

Congress, professing great concern at the alleged "chaos," leapt to the NAB's defense. It passed the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000, gutting the plan the FCC had already scaled back and calling for years of further study.

In February a congressionally commissioned FCC report came out, debunking the notion that chaos loomed and saying the risk of interference from low-power signals is trivial. As for Congress' plans to study the matter furtheron't bother, the report advised. It called any other inquiries a waste of money. "It was just an exercise in raw political power on the part of the National Association of Broadcasters to squeeze out people who have little or no voice here in Congress," says Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). "It's no more complicated than that."

In June McCain and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, introduced a bill to overturn the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act and let more stations on the air. The NAB is violently opposed and has backed an amendment by Senator Conrad Burns, a Republican representing Montana, to spend $800,000 doing just what the last study recommended against: more studies.

Senator McCain assesses the chances that Congress will ever buck the broadcasters and let in more radio competitors this way: "Dim. Extremely dim."

Lets not forget who controls the airwaves!
Still not convinced? Read this www.radiobrandy.com/BroadcastBullies1.html
Its four pages long but well worth reading. Its good to know who your enemies are!

Steve
www.radiobrandy.com

 

[wkbam1690]

A Little History About The NAB
BY
Scott Woolley, 09.06.04

In 1999 a wave of novice broadcasters tried to start several thousand new "low-power" FM radio stations, fledgling outfits that would fill gaps in the FM radio band. One group sought a license to air Baptist homilies in Connecticut, another for jazz in Oklahoma, another for Vietnamese talk shows in Minnesota.

Enter the National Association of Broadcasters. Radio lobbyists descended on the Federal Communications Commission, first persuading it to scale back the sweeping plans for new FM radio stations and then turning to Congress for still more relief. The NAB argued that even dinky nonprofits broadcasting at 100 watts or less would drown out existing FM radio stations. Allowing even the neutered FCC plan to proceed would "threaten to disintegrate the U.S. radio environment into chaos," the group said.

Congress, professing great concern at the alleged "chaos," leapt to the NAB's defense. It passed the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000, gutting the plan the FCC had already scaled back and calling for years of further study.

In February a congressionally commissioned FCC report came out, debunking the notion that chaos loomed and saying the risk of interference from low-power signals is trivial. As for Congress' plans to study the matter furtheron't bother, the report advised. It called any other inquiries a waste of money. "It was just an exercise in raw political power on the part of the National Association of Broadcasters to squeeze out people who have little or no voice here in Congress," says Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). "It's no more complicated than that."

In June McCain and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, introduced a bill to overturn the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act and let more stations on the air. The NAB is violently opposed and has backed an amendment by Senator Conrad Burns, a Republican representing Montana, to spend $800,000 doing just what the last study recommended against: more studies.

Senator McCain assesses the chances that Congress will ever buck the broadcasters and let in more radio competitors this way: "Dim. Extremely dim."

Lets not forget who controls the airwaves!
Still not convinced? Read this www.radiobrandy.com/BroadcastBullies1.html
Its four pages long but well worth reading. Its good to know who your enemies are!

Steve
www.radiobrandy.com

McCain for president!!!

 

[Carmine5]

Speaking of crushing the little guys, it looks like the NAB is at it again. Not content with trying to stop the satellite radio merger, they're now going after current and future LPFMs.

This from Pete Tridish:

"The NAB has put in a lawsuit against the FCC for their actions in the
third report and order on low power radio-- the order where they did a
bunch of things to help encroached stations and limit translator
abuses.

The NAB did not specify what their problem was, they said that the
decision was " arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of agency
discretion." They mentioned the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act
of 2000, which as you all know we are still trying to repeal."

This seems to be a just a tactic to bog down the process of getting the latest LPFM order passed. However, by insisting on keeping the status quo, the NAB is becoming increasingly friendless, out-of-touch and irrelevant.

C5

 

[RadioMan203]

Speaking of crushing the little guys, it looks like the NAB is at it again. Not content with trying to stop the satellite radio merger, they're now going after current and future LPFMs.

But you know, sure as spit, these guys are going to back cluttering up the FM band even further with translators and/or other FM allocations for AM stations. Geesh!

 

[Carmine5]

Speaking of crushing the little guys, it looks like the NAB is at it again. Not content with trying to stop the satellite radio merger, they're now going after current and future LPFMs.

But you know, sure as spit, these guys are going to back cluttering up the FM band even further with translators and/or other FM allocations for AM stations. Geesh!

Reminds me of the Mel Brooks' movie where he says, "It's good to be king." It's good to be the NAB (or Clear Channel) and have the FCC rubber stamp anything you want to do no matter how egregious it may be.

C5

 

[cee]

Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000

Study the words here. Quite Orwellian. Much like "War is Peace." What are they preserving? Preserving the opportunity for the fortunate few to have a license to print money.

 

[Grrrradio]

Two words: PIRATE FLEET. ;D

Legally wrong ain't always the same as morally wrong... especially when access to the legal process has been effectively monopolized by a rich, powerful few. Lying by calling this country "democratic" anymore... now THAT'S morally wrong. ;D

 

[XRQKFM]

If the playing field was level and fair it would be one thing! The fact it's not, the big boys run the Feds, and it's not limited to broadcasting. The airline and trucking industry come to mind. The average citizen does not have the funds to drop in his congressmen's pocket to get him to see it his way,

the legal process has been effectively monopolized by a rich, powerful few

and they never let us forget it!
grrrradio is right!

Two words: PIRATE FLEET

Steve
www.radiobrandy.com
www.xrqkfm.com

 

[Bongwater]

Well, the FCC (a subsidiary of the National Association of Broadcasters) has been pulling this since Telecom '96 went into effect. Yet I swear not a single damn one of these commissioners has got the sense to realize that it was TELECOM '96 that A) Ignited the fire that is LPFM / Part 15 and even pirates. B) Is why the corporate terrestrial broadcasting industry is in such a free fall these days. Or even C) Is why Clear Channel is in the mess they're in now and finally D) Why we suddenly need all these new "localism" rules when we already had that prior to the corporate gang rape of local radio in beginning in the early '80s that slowly lead to Telecom '96.

But like the cronies they deal with, they're still hell bent on thinking the same way of doing things will still work today. And as long as they're still paid to think they can crush small, innovative radio by legislating them out of existence or making them yet another corporate "product", that the corporate radio stations will suddenly bounce back victoriously. Never mind web radio, MySpace/Facebook, satellite radio, Music Choice, iPods, etc. Like they still don't exist.

In other words, they're still stuck in 1996. There's a generation right now that isn't. And they're not listening to the radio. And that is a shame, because there is NOTHING that can convince ANYBODY to buy an HD Radio if all they can offer is the same crap they have today, only glorified, warmed over and three times as expensive.

All the LPFMs and Part 15s want to do is offer local alternatives to those which have been taken away from them. The only people who are going to have any kind of problem with that are the corporate broadcasters. No one else I know. They have twisted the PRIVLEDGE of their broadcast licenses into an assumed ownership of their local radio spectrums in spite of everyone else...

And that was the INEVITABLE result of Telecom '96. I KNEW it when it got signed. And time has proved me right again...