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
Is XM regulated by the FCC? Could they carry Howard Stern? That'd be a great way to sock it to ClearChannel.
Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio.
Competition is good for radio... because it's bad for Clearchannel.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
New corporate ideology for the 21st century:
When being beaten by a competitor, you have three choices. Bitch, moan, and complain to the government about it.
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.
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?
...you don't hear commercial radio stations complaining about local BBC (which are commercial free) stations providing local traffic...they still complain in general, but they do have a point (because BBC radio is free to all, even though it's paid for off the TV licence)
This is ironic because ClearChannels is an XM investor (not much, but still owns a small percentage of the company and puts their talk shows on a couple of the channels).
I am a subscriber to XM radio and have been for almost a year. I don't listen to public radio anymore. If I could get uncensored comedy and headline news from a public radio station, we wouldn't have a need for subscription services. I think that if I'm paying for service, then XM/Sirius are more than welcome to push any content to me that they want, minus commercials.
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Never drink & derive.
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.
"cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/" ...! How many times do they need to get each organisation's name in there?
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.
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.
XM is a partnership between GM and ClearChannel Communications. The suit isn't being brought by Clear Channel, but by the National Association of Broadcasters.
And as for listening to satellite radio, I'll take Sirius anyday. They don't have the annoying Clearchannel DJ's and the "every stations sounds the same" Clearchannel effect (have they patented that yet?).
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
... was accused of generating it's own "local" news for many of it's markets? I.E. they didn't have a local news source (online newspaper in the area would probably qualify) so, rather than limiting their news to national coverage, they wrote their own stories with no basis in fact.
Fortunately in the Minneapolis, MN area we do have a reasonably good classic rock station that is not ClrCnl, which has locked out the ClrCnl morning shows. And for local traffic, one of the local Public Broadcast Radio stations provides updates every 10 min during rush hour, and actually has a great Jazz lineup.
ClrChn has attempted to "compete" in the Jazz market with their "Smooth Jazz" channel. I am not what you might call a conisour of Jazz, but I think their playlist is garbage.
I have listened to a couple of XM sat channels, but since I don't own a receiver (yet) I can't make any claims about it.
Radio stations mentioned...
KQRS - http://www.92kqrs.com/ - 92.5 FM
KBEM - http://www.jazz88fm.com/ - 88.5 FM - online
CC-SmoothJazz - 100.5 FM
There are a couple of other locally produced stations in the area. Since I like the Jazz88FM lineup, I have not listened to them.
For those concerned, KQRS is owned by Disney, but the Morning Show should be listened to a few times before you decide to let your kids listen in.
You never know...
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.
ClearChannel is whining to the FCC about XM Radio's recent foray into localized traffic and weather reports."
.
Clear Channel contends that patiotism demands that traffic reports only recommend right turns and not any of those pro-Dixie Chicks, gay marriage-ing, terr'ist aiding lefty turns.
As for the weather, well, Clear Channel says it's sunny days with n'ary a terr'ist in the skies for all God's chilluns under GW Bush, and there'll be pie in the sky when you die , and you that ain't got rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him / And high office relations , you can join the army, if you fail
But I saw you don't need a weather man/ To know which way the wind blows . I say pretty soon it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall
Cause I say the airwaves don't belong to a company in Texas, I say that this land belongs to you and me.
And I hope my playlist here (figurtively) kills Fascists
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
According to the FCC, there are about 13,000-15,000 radio stations in the US broadcasting at any one time. At last count Clear Channel had 1,176 stations. That is near 10%, not exactly a monopoly. Clear Channel is the biggest single owner, but they are not the only one. Cox, Infinity, Ennis, are all players in this game, and they are part of a lobbying group that asked for this. Clear Channel did not ask for this, the lobbying group did. This is the problem I keep talking about -- people think CC is the only one wrong so they ignore the other people too. Sigh.
I have a lot of hate for clearchannel but I dont want to rant all day about it here. You can find some observations about the way they do business here. Keep in mind its a very opinionated site, but then again you are reading articles at /. so you must be used to that by now.
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
NPR stations are worried about XM too, because of what they see as not only current competition, but also in the event that NPR begins placing NPR programs onto the XM schedule. NPR is like a franchise, with each member station deriving revenue based on NPR programming, with fees paid back to NPR. if XM and NPR were to begin a program agreement, your local NPR repeater (that is all they are really) would begin to suffer from lack of exclusivity. NPR has been vague about its plans, but there is worry at the npr station level that NPR will begin to make deals with XM, once XM subscriber numbers climb to higher levels. The issue of XM and Sirius using their ground level repeaters to offer local content has been worried about now since XM launched, and it will be interesting to see what happens. I say: whatever gives us more choices, and so I'm in favor of XM using their capability to deliver local content. Depending on a listener's preferences, XM probably already offers competitive programming to most of local, commerical laden offerings, and with BBC World Service, offers a better news channel than NPR.
Although I've not heard the Clear Channel adverts saying how bad XM is (mainly because I haven't listened to broadcast radio since I have had XM) this stuff about spotty coverage is a joke. I have even gotten reception in an underground parking garage! I can only recall loosing reception one time, for about 2 seconds. I did rent a car which had Sirius and was not nearly as happy with the reception as it did cut out even going under bridges. I am also a bit confused over the advertising against what Clear Channel partially owns..makes no sense. Then again - Clear Channel is the same group that thinks there are only 20 songs worth playing. I think it would be a bit funny for XM to pack up and move overseas. What is the US going to do - shoot down their satellite ushering in a new era of outer space warfare? Not to mention the free speach implications of doing such a thing.
"'4 out of 5 of America's enemy leaders support Kerry for President. Why do you suppose that is? '
5 out of 5, Spain just change governments."
6 out of 6, rogue state Taiwan backs away from Bush. Better add them to the list.
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. :(
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?
I know bashing on Clear Channel is popular, but this is getting ridiculous.
First of all, it is not Clear Channel but National Association of Broadcasters that filed the complaint (contrary to what the original posting says) which Clear Channel is one of many members (as someone pointed out, they only got about 10% of the radio market).
Also, this request isn't that far out there. After all, local radio and TV stations have to pay fees and licenses to transmit locally, so why shouldn't satellite based radios have to-do the same if they want to have local content? DirecTV and Dish both provide local content, but they are very strict on the fact that you can only get your own local channels due to these rules. I don't see why satellite radio should be any different.
Now I wouldn't mind if the satellite services were allowed to have local content based on GPS, but I don't think its right to charge money of one group to transmit local content and not the other.
This just fits the pattern of what the Bushies love to do - use government institutions to further their own agenda. I find it interesting how many Republicans talk of the evils of 'big government' yet seem to be the first ones to wield it's awesome power to crush those who oppose them. Regarding CC, I have been reading about the Bush connection for a couple years and have personally observed it - here in Phoenix there was a lot of hoopla over CC's yanking a talk show host who frequently criticized Bush - they then replaced him with a couple jokers who act like Bush is the second coming of Christ. An interesting link on the CC Bush connection http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/04/18_clear.h tml
"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.
* Microsoft complains to the FTC about the Real Player
* AT&T files a complaint with the FCC claiming that Verizon promotes confusing cell phone plans
* Conservatives complain about liberal media taking over television and radio
* Hummvee company complains that the Toyota Prius is "too gay" to be allowed on highways
* Republicans cry "foul" over moveon.org PAC
* Spammers decry latest anti-spam legislation
* MTV files complaint against cartoon network citing inappropriate programming for young people
* Sony files suit against the makers of pong saying it infringes on a patent they hold relative to Everquest
* DMCA seeks to expands its powers to incorporate people thinking about movies as being a violation of copyright.
* Comcast sues ESPN, citing that the cable channel is "too appealing" to some consumers and detracts from their 14 cubic zirconia shopping channels.
* Bush holds a press conference
I have, and the true irony of it is that it's a commercial.
The worst I've heard on Sirius music streams are the DJs talking about what else there is to listen to on other streams, including then the occasional joke about other streams ("This is the hard rock stream! If you want pussy rock, go over to stream 9!"). In general there's nobody there telling me what I like or what I should be listening to, which is all broadcast radio does these days.
When next you listen to an FM station keep track of how many times they tell you that you're listening to the songs you love (and "none of the songs you don't") or how often they play recordings of other people talking about how great the station is.
(Hell, I still don't see the point in "HD radio." Why pay for better-sounding car commercials?)
Personally, I'm happier with the satellite radio philosophy where the paying subscriber is the ultimate arbiter of what they want or do not want to hear. Not the advertisers, not the government, and usually not even the record companies (Sirius is making it much easier for me to find CDs published by non-RIAA members).
Out of curiousity, is there anybody out there who had been a customer of either XM or Sirus and actually left? Like the commercials put out by the FM/AM broadcasters suggest?
= 9J =
I haven't listened to to any stations owned by $conglomorate in $years. There are so many better alternatives out there like $NPR1, $NPR2, $internet_radio_station, or $satellite_company.
Besides, I don't even listen to radio while I'm doing $activity. I use my $mp3_player_brand or cd player.
...and that's all there is to it.
"What about satellite TV, they are allowed to air local television, why shouldn't satellite radio be allowed to air local reports as well."
There are a few reasons.
First off, DirecTV and Dish aren't just putting out local information, they're re-broadcasting local VHF/UHF stations, basicly stuff you could get with some rabbit ears. Sirius and XM are putting out their own content for the local markets, with their own traffic and weather people.
Secondly, DirecTV and Dish are using both special satellite transmitters and the hardware lockouts in the receivers to keep only people in the local area from getting that local content; somebody living in Los Angeles isn't going to be getting New York television stations from either DirecTV or Dish. Neither XM nor Sirius have the technology nor the inclination to do that; they have a few dozen streams set aside for the information and all of their subscribers can listen to it, no matter where they are. Even though I live in the New Orleans area I can listen to traffic and weather in Baltimore.
And finally the streams on Sirius and XM are only carrying traffic and weather. No talk shows, no music, no commercials, just reports that are repeated and updated once every five minutes or so.
Really, this seems like a no-brainer to me. When ClearChannel took over most of the stations in the Fargo area, trying to get any kind of news or weather report out of the radio became a lot harder. Perhaps because they pipe these broadcasts all over the state of North Dakota, they don't want to localize them too much or people will "catch on" (like they haven't already).
Instead of whining to the government about their perceived competition, why don't they start a competing satellite service? They might be forced to learn a thing or two about what the listeners want instead of pushing the same tired station "formats".
If you owned a radio station, and ClearChannel owns it now, shame on you, not ClearChannel.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I don't know a single person who listens to XM radio. I listen to FM (NPR).
I seriously, seriously doubt that any satellite radio will make serious inroads into ordinary radio listeners, FM or AM, while it costs money. You don't need to pay a cent to listen to FM radio (except the tiny cost of the radio itself). That's a pretty big advantage over XM.
Also, listening to NPR stations, I don't get commercials (at least, I certainly wouldn't call the regular announcers calmly reading the sponsors' slogans commercials). I'm lucky enough to get 2 NPR stations here: 1 that has news & talk-show-type-stuff all day (Diane Rehm, Talk of the Nation, Day to Day, etc), and one that plays classical music all day. That's all I would ever want from a radio station.
No satellite radio provider will ever get my business so long as WCNY and WRVO are on the air.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Um, no. Congress doesn't oversee the day to day activities of the FCC, but it does oversee it's funding. If the FCC upsets congress (as was threated during the last round of discussion the FCC had on deregulation.) then Congress can state in it's appropration's bill that the FCC may spend up to the massive sum of $0 to enforce what ever rule is annoying Congress. I also think you need to review the concept of checks and balances in the goverment. The FCC is under the exectutive branch, as are all regulatory bodies. But those bodies get thier mandate from Congress. Generally in vauge terms like "make sure that the people can get access to the airwaves...", and the FCC makes the regulations about it. The Congress makes the rules, the President enforces them, the Supreme Court (and lower courts) rule on the consituationality of them.
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.
I'd probably already picked up one of the two services if the pay plan allowed you to purchase a subscription that works on receivers in the car and in the house. Radio is too portable to be tied to a single receiver, and for the monthly fee (plus maybe a dollar for each additional unit), I should be able to listen in the car while my wife listens at home. For now, though, the only way to do that is with two full subscriptions.
Can you imagine if telegraph manufacturers tried to limit the growth of the telephone? "It's cutting into our market!" Or 8-track tape manufacturers?
Um....that's what happens in capitalism.
If radio goes obsolete someday because it was replaced by something that people prefer, then so be it.
This is ultra lame.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
Yes, but by passing this legistlation they my "lose" local broadcast on XM radio. But it will force Sirius to not broadcast local content.
Therefore, killing off local content on the main competition to XM whilst holding on to the hundreds of stations around the country playing CC approved content.
(They hope) Sirius will die without the local content, and then CC will have control of all land based and satellite based radio! YEA!