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.

14 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. FM is Going the way of AM by Audguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is no chance of them ever competing with XM, because their traffic and weather is so much better, and without commercials, since I got mine, I haven't even once turned on my car radio since. So yes I think that ClearChannel DOES have something to worry about.

    1. Re:FM is Going the way of AM by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What has the NAB going crazy is that XM has some land-based repeaters to fill holes in their satellite patern. In order to get those land-based repeaters, XM had to promise that they'd never use them to create local stations by broadcasting different things in different places, they had to relay the whole national signal.

      Now, the "local traffic and weather" channels on XM now are actually national channels. That is to say, you can hear a Boston traffic report in Los Angeles perfectly clear. Not sure why anybody would want to, but it's there if you want it. All of the land-based repeaters are relaying all of the channels, even the ones intended for far-away cities. Therefore, XM is complying with the letter of the agreement just fine.

      However, the NAB is trying to say that these "local" services violate the rules just to make life harder for XM.

  2. Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? by Squeezer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    according to http://www.stereophile.com/news/032904news/ and many other news article that can be searched on google news, clear channel has part ownership of XM radio, so why is clear channel trying to stop XM radio? clearly, if XM radio prospers, then so does clear channel.

    "Other major XM shareholders include radio giant Clear Channel Communications, Inc."

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    1. Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? by brutus_007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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, which means they could potentially have a controlling interest, or even flat out own, both major players. Remember, ClearChannel isn't only radio, they have those innumerable billboards on the road, they own a great number (65%-70%+) of concert venues in the U.S.

      For those who have poor opinions of Microsoft's business practices, ClearChannel's doings are roughly similar, except they want to control not just what software you run, but also the computer on which you use said software, where said computer can be used and what the software will stop you from doing if it doesn't think what you're doing with it is decent.

      --
      I have 1 million monkeys on a million year contract to make me a better sig.
  3. Re:"Failing business?" by gerbache · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The trouble is that XM and Sirius are still monthy fee services, while I can tune in to FM radio stations free over the airwaves. I know a lot of people are into XM radio and all, but personally, I just don't listen to the radio enough to make it worth my while to pay for a service, and I'd say that a lot of other people are like that, as well.

    That being said, I can't see how the competition from them can be a bad thing for anyone but ClearChannel. Plus, if XM is not regulated by the FCC (I don't know this for sure, can anyone verify), we can get around all the censorship BS going on right now with our lovely FCC....

  4. Now it is all starting to make some sense ... by stull13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many people wondered why Clear Channel was so quick to dump the Stern show in six markets without putting up any kind of a fight.

    While at first they presented themselves as being truly ashamed of the "Indecency" over their airwaves, it seems now that they were supporting the FCC in a very public arena so they could work themselves into a position where they can influence FCC policies. It probably doesn't hurt that they are a huge corporate donor to the Bush campaign.

    On a recent Stern show episode, Howard suggested holding concerts in major Clear Channel markets to combat their growing power. With this latest news we have all the more reason not to support them and their anti-competitive policies.

    For more information go here.

  5. Corporations and New Technology by Art+Pollard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I get tired of corporations complaining about new technology. Clearly XM and Sirius are both new technologies and are the wave of the future. Remember when t.v. cable was new and all these same arguements were presented? For ClearChannel to be competitive over the long haul, it needs to get off its rear and create a satelite network of its own or get its shows carried on the various satelite radio providers.

    Passing legislation such as this is stupid to put it bluntly. It will not change anything. If passed, in 10 years, we will be back to hearing the same arguments and eventually, the satelite providers will be providing whatever they choose anyway with or without ClearChannel's participation -- just as cable carries your local t.v. stations. In fact, because of cable the television stations do not spend lots of money putting in new translator stations to obtain expanded signal coverage and instead rely on the satelite or cable providers to carry their local broadcasts.

  6. Re:And to think... by petabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're probably anti-free speech only in the sense that they don't want anyone else to dare compete with them. Most large companies should be awarded similar awards for clamping down on freedoms. It makes you wonder about what all of this media consoliation is going to do.

    I agree Ashcroft is a bit crazy with the censorship but one big difference is that Ashcroft can be asked to resign or be voted out of office (hopefully for someone less restrictive). Monopolies with deep pockets will likely be around for a long time ...

  7. This disgusts me by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This type of blind support of the special interest is What Is Wrong With The System (TM). I have been an XM subscriber for about four months. I signed up just before the local stations had ever been announced, but I can tell you, had I know they were offered, I would have signed up even faster. Last week I drove back down to Florida from Maryland down I-95, and I used their Baltimore, D.C. and Tampa channels to anticipate upcoming weather and traffic conditions. If you're not from the local area, you have no idea what AM / FM stations broadcast what type of content, and even then you have to shit through three to five minutes of mindless advertising (ever notice that the majority of ClearChannel ads hawk the same kind of stuff sold in spam?) before there's even a chance of lucking into a traffic or weather broadcast. The XM local traffic and weather stations are extremely helpful and an absolute blessing to frequent travelers.

    I love XM because it puts choice of content back in the hands of the user. If I want to hear talk radio, I've got 20+ channels any time I want them, right, left or "neutral." If I want to hear just about ANY type of music, from jazz to death metal, it's always on and commercial free, and the quality is way higher than FM.

    Fuck ClearChannel and their shitty ad-supported big media content. I hope they get run out of business, but no doubt their store-bought suckling government officials will shield them from such a fate and punish the sat radio providers accordingly. :(

  8. Re:"Failing business?" by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    " ClearChannel are a failing business?
    Aren't they practically in a monopoly situation and trying to keep it that way?"

    Radio ITSELF is a failing business. Arbitron ratings show that people are listening to it less and less, and that the decline has accelerated since the consolidation after the 1996 telecoms act.

    What CC fears is competition, of course, so they are trying to use the FCC to prevent one.

    I wonder what they think of internet radio, a competitor that is growing faster than satellite...

    I, myself run an internet station, hosted at Live 365, and I do live/local shows in the evening on it. http://cat92fm.com I try to actually appeal to a LOCAL audience with it. Though it's more of a hobby than a serious effort, I do have some listeners, and most of them are local, and they listen during the day because the music I play isn't played by the local CC cluster (they own 9 stations in our small merket)

    I think CC wants to impose something like what is done to cable TV providers: Federally mandated monopoly. With cable or satellite, you are legally stuck with your local stations, you can't choose a different one, and it's illegal for the provider to sell them to you.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  9. Re:Competition is good for radio.... by Selecter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Exactly why is that statement a troll?

    This might get modded as off topic, but I'm gonna do it anyways. People need to understand what a bunch of bastards Clear Channel and the NAB are and some semi related background info on their past behavior might be useful.

    The real travesty in radio is that the only real ownership liberalization in many years was stifled at the request of the NAB and Clear Channel - Low Power FM stations which can be licensed and brought on line at very low cost compared to a "regular" station. This would have allowed normal folk with little capital to began legally broadcasting with decent range and signal - somethingthe NAB and Queer Channel didnt want.

    Becuase of the NAB and Queer Channel the 1000 watt provision of the LPFM proposal was yanked due to what turned out to be a bogus phony "interference" concern that was later DISPROVEN by the the FCC's own hired examiners. The 1000 watt proposal was killed becuase in many cases it would have allowed station ranges to be competitive with their CC corporate owned stations.

    The LPFM proposal if it had been left intact and not gutted by Queer Channel and the NAB lobbyists would have done more to revolutionize radio than satellite radio - becuase there would have been thousands of new voices on the air in every city and town. You bet yer ass they dont want competition from anyone, and most of all form ordinary citizens, to whom the PUBLIC airwaves are SUPPOSED to belong. Of course they are going to whine to the FCC - it's gotten the desired result before for them....

    So of course now the gutted remnants of the LPFM ( cumbersome application process, limited licenses to be issued, only 10 and 100 watt power limits, too low to have any range ) are not having much effect. Geee, wonder why?

    Lets hope the satellite companies fight Clear Channel with everything they have. If this rant was too off topic, sorry, but I gotta get my ya-ya's out sometimes, boss. The way they sliced and diced LPFM really pissed me off royal. Can ya tell? :D

  10. The Sig is the point of his post by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Yah, where the shit did that sig come from?"

    I think the Sig was the whole point of his post.
    (18 words in the Sig, only 13 in the post, the Sig WAS the message he's pushing).

    He made a short comment simply repeating the stories angle, followed by a misleading political statement as a sig.

    Do you think he got 5 points for restating the competition angle already mentioned in the original story? Probably not, Bush supporters mod him up to push the sig message.

    From the story:
    "Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio. "

    From his comment:
    "XM and Sirius ARE good for competition, that's why ClearChannel doesn't like them"

    Not insightful.

  11. Re:"Failing business?" by filekutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree completely with you... I refuse to listen to ClearChannel radio at all, and point out that ClearChan has also been behind a lot of public radio stations being taken over and given to the christian networks. We are gradually and systematically, losing our public airwaves. Soon, public and indie radio will be just a chapter in media text-books.

    --
    I call computer-illiteracy job security
  12. Re:"Failing business?" by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your suspicions are largely correct.

    According to this report (partly done with the help of Lawrence Lessig), ClearChannel owns 1244 stations and owns 27% of the listenership. They've achieved this largely by playing to the safe music picks in CHR (Contemporary Hit Radio) and other formats, with a focus on crossover music (songs that fit in more than one genre) so they can play the same song on all the different stations they own in the same market.

    Or, to put it a different way, ClearChannel is the "McDonalds" of radio. They find safe bland songs within each genre (mostly about sexual attraction), and serve it up constantly, heavily laden with ads. About a quarter of Americans love this format -- just like some people love McDonalds. And they have parlayed that profitability into such a dominant position in radio that they can use their market power to drive even better deals for themselves from the RIAA and musicians.

    New songs? Forget it. Unless you have already climbed the dial elsewhere or have big money backing you.