Check out this AP story about the current financial crisis, and then apply the comments to radio. Hmmmmm.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) - While acknowledging that the Federal Reserve was "extremely uncomfortable" about last year's bailouts of big financial companies, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday the central bank's strategy to ease the financial crisis is working.
Bernanke was referring to the Fed's unprecedented decisions last year to step in and financially back JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s takeover of then-troubled investment house Bear Stearns and throw its first of four financial lifelines to insurance giant American International Group Inc.


In remarks during a Fed conference in Charlotte, N.C., Bernanke said the central bank was forced to take action because the collapse of those companies would have dealt a serious blow to the financial system and the national economy.

[b]The situation underscores the need for new powers to allow the government to safely wind down such huge firms, he said.[/b] Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently asked Congress for such powers.

The situation underscores the need for new powers to allow the government to safely wind down such huge firms, he said. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently asked Congress for such powers.

There ya go. ;o)

Maybe it's time for radio to start over. All licenses owned by anyone holding more than 10 stations are canceled and can be applied for.

This would be a good time since most of the stock in these stations is worth nothing anyway.

And what are the chances that if the licenses of stations were cancelled because their owners had too many stations, that some of those signals would go dark, some for an extended period of time?

I would believe there would be a chance this would make things worse for some communities, at least initially.

geez, how could things get any worse? Radio is lyin' on the floor bleeding.

You gotta start somewhere. If something like what Deane is proposing should happen over the course of a few years maybe it's worth exploring.

I don't think you can create a one size fits all, but look at each companies radio frequencies and financial health and then determine from there the best course of action. Maybe some stations need to go dark.

Some stations going dark is a good idea. There are too many in every market in the country. Fewer stations in the hands of individual operators in a position to be profitable while serving their community would be way ahead of where we are today.

Why the FCC ever thought it was in the public interest to jam in more stations, with everyone starving, or to put all the stations in the hands of a few Wall Street companies defies explanation.

"Why the FCC ever thought it was in the public interest to jam in more stations"

This issue predates even the Reagan era beginning the deregulation of ownership. Previous research I have done in the 90's uncovered a long trail of licensees complaining about overly stringent interference rules, primarily on the FM band, primarily on the eastern seaboard. Small owners found it increasingly difficult to pioneer new channels in adjacent communities (adjacent to their initial license location) because of second and third adjacent rules making many frequencies that appeared quiet on the dial unusable. Usually the protected frequencies were full power main metro stations. These small owners discovered that in many cases, they would have to locate too far away to be able to use a consolidated workforce/marketing/sales plan, thus defeating the whole notion of owning several stations out of range of each other in coverage, but all still located close enough to pool resources efficiently. Only years later, when receiver technology got a lot better, was interference limits re-examined (Docket 80-90).
Of course, in the current landscape, with the same ownership owning both the full power metro license and the suburban license, power reductions are now possible which is why we see a lot of drop-ins that under competing ownerships would never happen.

"with everyone starving"

Ad revenues haven't grown enough to support the metro saturation described above, economy downturn notwithstanding.

"put all the stations in the hands of a few Wall Street companies defies explanation."

Newt and the contract on America took the Reaganesque broadcast model to the extreme. By lifting practically all ownership limits nationwide and expanding the Reagan era duopolies to octopolies, etc., big business would be allowed to flourish. This is, after all, the agenda of that party. The lobbies threw Clinton a bone (rural hi speed internet) and the next thing you know, it's what we've got now.

*******************************

So much for the facts. IMO the NAB will continue to fight against any wholesale step "backwards" with regards to ownership limits. I think that only a lack of profit will motivate the mega owners to shed properties, instead of the trading that's gone on recently to strengthen presence in specific markets. The free enterprise model is kind of its own policeman. With the internet now competing for ad dollars like a regular player, the pie for broadcast shrinks. As population centers grow, and they always do, new proposed service on the commercial dial will draw smaller entrepreneurs to bid when they realize that the mega owners are tapped out. I don't know for sure, but I think we are on the precipice of just that.

well written Andy, with the only exception of many dems went along for the ride as well.

overall though A good example of what can happen down the road when one side of the aisle holds all the cards. Fastest way to get things out of whack.

Not just radio, but big business in general.

The solution seems to be "Lose the Greed mentality" and that won't happen no matter the tax rate, restrictions or regulations....

Now along the same lines since the majority of new jobs are created by small business, shouldn't there be relaxed taxing and regulations for new business start ups? While the bulk of the breaks should come at the state and local level, the feds could help out as well. Everytime a WALMART opens they get the world handed to them. The small start up gets buried in license fees, B&O taxes, prepaid utilities and all the associated $$$ outlays that starts them in a hole.

What can the present admin offer to encourage new business people to open shop?

No, the solution is manage the greed.

Big difference.

Greed is good. Unchecked greed is bad. Results in a travesty of the commons.

Over the many years I was in broadcasting, I didn't notice much difference in what Congress or the FCC did regardless of which party was in control. It was all pretty well ill conceived and poorly thought out. Pretty much a model of how things go when government has anything to do with them.

I just had an odd thought.

What about the radio version of a band plan? Don't throw anything at me yet, just give me a bit here...

So, break it down by market and have each known niche established. So 1 Rock station, 1 jazz, etc... Use a pool of research and let the bean counters and number crunchers roll out a plan based on the formats that exist today, and their performance, revenue, etc...

If they make their number, they get that niche. If they don't they either change to a new one, or close up shop, or do news / talk commentary.

New niches can be declared and added, with the same provisions. Perhaps those can be part of some bi-annual process of some kind where we close the loop between public, advertizers, broadcasters ---or something. Just need to be able to change the scope as innovation occurs, and very strongly encourage innovation.

Maybe do grants for content innovators. They lay out the plan, do the research, and pick up a stick where somebody is going home. Have Uncle Sam subsidize it, so people can get out and do something else. Nobody wants to totally crash. No reason for them to. We are bleeding huge, this wouldn't even be noticed!

Go big, or go home, or make your nut, or do talk / news. That's the essence of what I thought of.

I know, sounds horrible. I think it's horrible, but I was trying to consider how to cull the stations, if that were the right thing to do. Just an idle thought exercise, like the other "we've got too many stations" thread, I posted up a while back. Maybe spark some conversation!

Anyway, it would totally make the revenue / number of stations ratio better, increasing the chance of them being viable. Seems to me, no matter how it goes down, without content innovation to expand the scope of appeal, viability comes down to fewer players overall, as limits of automation and cost cutting are reaching diminishing returns.

It's top heavy now. (too much management, sales and other corporate cruft) Might as well strongly encourage an environment where maybe there are fewer people, but they are good, and can live on what they make!

And that's not a slam on anybody working for whoever. You gotta do what you gotta do. Been there, done that, it's all good. Maybe I don't have to have the flame suit this time