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.

33 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. "Failing business?" by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:"Failing business?" by Paleomacus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but as XM becomes more mainstream are you going to listen to ClearChannel stations? I don't have XM and try to listen to Non-ClearChannel stations. ClearChannel stations have the most obnoxious radio shows,commercials, jockeys and play the narrowest selection of music.

      XM has many stations that don't even have commercials and cater to any musical taste. In my area we don't even have an FM Jazz station...

    2. 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....

    3. Re:"Failing business?" by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      They made profits of $187 million on revenue of $2.29 billion. I wish I could fail like that.

    4. Re:"Failing business?" by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a big difference between owning 10% of radio stations, and owning 10% of total listenership. I suspect that a vast majority of the number of radio stations cover a small percentage of the total listeners, while ClearChannels 10% of the stations covers a lion's share of the listeners.

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. Re:"Failing business?" by Eshock · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are mostly correct, XM's content is not regulated by the FCC, like over-the-air radio and TV broadcasts are. They are under a looser regulation scheme, like satellite TV. Basically the only thing regulated is what frequencies they're allowed to broadcast on, etc. Content is still 100% up to them though.

    8. 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.

  2. And to think... by Jin+Wicked · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. 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 ...

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
    2. Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

  5. Why focus on Clear Channel? by bkirkby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. URL.... what??? by julesh · · Score: 4, Funny

    "cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/" ...! How many times do they need to get each organisation's name in there?

  7. 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.

  8. Radio Killed the Radio Star by ljavelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Radio Killed the Radio Star by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "has been running advertisements poking fun at satellite radio services,"

      Yeah, we're going to tell you about how awful commercial-free music is... by running commercials...

  9. The FCC is evolving by w3weasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  10. ClearChannel... Isn't this the "network" that.... by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... 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...
  11. 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.

  12. Here's MY playlist by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  13. 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. :(

  14. Out of curiosity by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that the FCC gets any say into what can be broadcast from space?

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. Re:No, they only own less than 10% by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Informative

    CC owns 9 stations in my 20-something station market.

    Those 9 stations, in the ratings, account for about 50% of the listening audience.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  18. And in related news... by mabu · · Score: 5, Funny

    * 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

  19. yeah... by nuggetman · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  20. Just what business model is failing? by 87C751 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There's a lot of noise in this thread (ya think?), but most is missing the essential point. The business model that's beginning to crumble is advertising as a revenue base. Like so many other outlets, terrestrial broadcast radio exists for one purpose: to get you to listen to the ads. Listener counts are used to set advertising rates, and advertising revenue is the largest portion of a broadcaster's income (bringing in even more than payola). The NAB wants to protect their franchise to bombard you with ads.

    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.