Slashdot Mirror
ClearChannel Complains About XM, Sirius Radio
andyring writes "In the latest attempt by a big corporation with a failing business model to win by legislation and not in the marketplace, ClearChannel is whining to the FCC about XM Radio's recent foray into localized traffic and weather reports." Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio.
ClearChannel are a failing business?
Aren't they practically in a monopoly situation and trying to keep it that way?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I got heavily criticised in a story a couple of days ago for saying Clear Channel should get one of those awards for being against free speech.
They may be a private corporation but they have used the FCC and other ways of influencing gov't to make sure that they get to control certain aspects of the airwaves. They may not be John Ashcroft but they are certainly interested in controlling the market and what you hear. =P
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
The petition was filed by the National Association of Broadcaters of which Clear Channel is a member. I've heard so many tinfoil hat theories about Clear Channel that when I see /. editorial content that modifies the story like this it makes me question the motive here.
Entercom Communications Corp. , the fourth-largest U.S. over-the-air radio company, has been running advertisements poking fun at satellite radio services, roasting the $10-$12 monthly subscription rate as well as lack of local information and spotty signals when traveling between buildings.
Too bad they can't argue on the aspects of quality programming. Broadcast Radio quality has fallen to the point where I simply don't listen to it. Local traffic? Ha, it's usually old information. I get better information via my cell phone. Quality music? Rrrrright.... if you like to hear the same seven songs played hundreds of times within a month. I'll play my own music - at least then I hear something other than those 7 (once-good, now-annoying) songs.
Clearly broadcast radio quality has fallen substantially, and Satellite is quickly filling the void. I don't have it yet, but I'm thinking about it.
The FCC is evolving from a regulatory agency into a slush-fund generator (with full support of whatever party is in power of course).
Sure, its a bit of a conspiracy theory, or at least its damn cynical, but just look at the slew of recent rulings favoring not what is best for Americans, but what is best for the corporation.
The difficult thing for me to swallow, is that Clearchannel is not so different from the sattelite services, in that 99.9% of Clearchannel programming, including traffic, weather and news, does not originate anywhere near the locality where it is transmitted. In Essence, Clearchannel is a sattelite broadcaster that uses conventional radio transmitter for the last-mile service delivery.
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
Why cant XM and Sirius offer localized content? (besides the fact that it will create competition for National Association of Broadcasters) The article doesnt say. Isnt this a free speech issue?
"youre not allowed to talk about the traffic or weather"
"why not?"
"because..."
???*confused*
Clear Channel may only own 10% of the radio stations, but that can be misleading. A 50kW FM station in a top 50 market is worth a lot more, and has a much larger audience, than a 500W AM station in a rural area.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"The petition was filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), not Clear Channel. "
Well seeing as how Clear Channel is the largest radio broadcaster and owns 1200 radio stations in the US, it is pretty safe to say they dominate the NAB, especially in issues related to radio. I am sure that is why Reuters inserted their name into the rpess release.
"Secondly, how is local radio a failed business model? "
Local radio may not be a failed bussiness model but it is very well documented that most clear channel's stations have been steadily losing audiences since being taken over by clear channel. Thus, clear channel is a failed bussiness model. And quite fittingly, their stock prices have been steadily decreasing ever since they obtained this large number of stations (around 2000).
The fact that satelite radio exists is further proof for the bad quality of local radio. Think about it -- people install additional devices in their cars and buy monthly subscriptions to get satelite radio, while they can get local radio for free. Well local radio must really suck.
This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Clear channel is a large national company that "owns" most of the large markets in the U.S.
Before deregulation local radio stations were pretty much just that. Many were locally owned, had local programming staff and even those that were owned by outside interests functioned pretty much autonomosly.
In Minneapolis (and many other cities) Clear Channel has bought up most of the more popular stations and consolidated their operations. The different stations share sales staffs, engineering staffs, and administrative staff and in some cases even on-air personalities. Their programming decisions come down from the corporate level.
Not all of this is bad. There are improvments in effiency and reduced labor costs and other business related benefits. I have no problem with that.
What does bother me is that it makes it difficult for new artists to get airplay. When the programming decisions are handed down by such a select few people for the whole country, they only pick from a stable of artists that are already established or have the right "influence."
It is like the difference between going to Mc Donalds and going to a mom & pop locally owned cafe. You aren't gonna find any local specialties and while you can probably find something you like at McDonalds, you won't get anything really great either!
Why is it that the FCC gets any say into what can be broadcast from space?
What CC wants is for the FCC to regulate the content on satellite radio. They threw in XM because it has name recognition, despite their stake in it (which I believe stands around 30%), but what I believe is part of their true objective is FCC regulation...
You hit the nail right on the head. Broadcasters basically think at this point that they cannot safely air Howard Stern, Bubba The Love Sponge or any other similar program without fear of large FCC fines. However, right now those shows can find a safe haven on XM and Sirius with no FCC content restrictions at all. XM and Sirius might sensor their "family level" channels on their own, but Playboy Radio being a premium channel can do absolutely anything they want.
The broadcasters see this as a popular content type that they're about to lose access to about to be used against them. They want the same standards applied to the satellite broadcasters...
When you think of it, XM and Sirius are the popup blockers of radio.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.