David Eduardo wrote:
Were the other clear channel stations pressing for 500 kW privliges?


WLW in '48 was using 50 kw.

If I recall WLW was required to shut down the 500KW rig in 1939. (I've
heard vague rumors it was occasionally "re-lit" during WW2 at the
request of the Army)

I know WSM filed for 500KW, and was part of a group of 1-A clears that
asked for 750KW in the 1970s. I'm quite confident it wasn't the only
one besides WLW to do so.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

These priviledged stations wanted no competiton and even greater power.
Specifically, 750 kw.

Well they sure didn't get anything like that! Also, they lost the pure
clear channels. So, I guess that supports your point that the networks
and
the clear channels were closely joined. And as the radio networks
declined,
so did the clear channel's Washington clout.

Keep in mind that in the 70's, WOAI in San Antonio was near receivership
with a 1-A clear channel. The new owners, Messrs. Mays and Combs, bought it
for next to nothing and capitalized the "clear channel" designation as the
name of thier new company. There were quite a few others like it that were
very unimpressive performers in that era.


FM started in the late 30's. It was not profitable on any scale until
thelate 60's. In fact, form 1950 to 1960, there was a net decline in
licensed FMs. And UHF made it only due to the dual band tuner
requirement
pushed by the FCC when they saw UHHFs shutting down all over the place
in
the mid to late 50's.

Yes, that's my point. There's no shortage of big dreams. The early FM
and
UHF-TV broadcasters ended up being no real threat to the established
broadcasters, but that couldn't be known with certainty in the early days.
Plenty of otherwise capable investors threw money down the rat hole. But
nobody knew it was a rat hole in advance. So while I can't prove it, it
still seems likely that the FCC's domestic SW ban was to protect the
Networks/Clear Channel stations from competition.

Sounds right. Interestingly, in the 30's the nets tried to do commerical SW
for Latin America and lost lots of money.

WRNO was an international staiton, aimed outside the US. In fact, Joe
Costello bought a condo in Puerto Rico so he could sit and listen to his
station in the Caribbean. The idea did not work, just as the commercial
SW
efforts of the big networks aimed at LAtin Ameirca did not work in the
late
30's.

Was he more serious about being an international broadcater than the
current
domestics?

Yes. I spoke with him severa times, and he was a true believer that a rock
station... an album rock station, could be very successful in the
Hemisphere.

He didn't do much broadcasting in Spanish.

He felt that US rock was so popular in Latin America (a fact) that a real US
station in English with American formatics could be a huge winner. If it had
been satellite delivered to local FMs, he would have been right.

His programming was
almost 100% US oriented.

Actually, it was a US style station for foreign audiences who loved US
music.

Mostly simulcasts from WRNO-FM. Seemed like every
other ad was for the car dealer in Kenner.

When it started, they had plans to be 100% separate. When WRNO started to do
badly, there was not much left for the SW.


The border blasters were irrelevant. They hawked products (the
equivalent
of
HSN and infomericals), and had very little audience as they really had
no
interesting programs. They operatied erratically, and could only be
heard
at
night (they did not even operate in the daytime, in fact). There were
only
a
couple of them and thier history is spotty.

What about Wolfman Jack?

Until he moved to XERB in Rosarito, which is not a border blaster, but put a
half decent signal over LA, he was a novelty but not a real audience factor.

Is it a coincidence that the rise of domestic SW came after the decline of
the radio networks?

I don't think so. I think the rise of stations that would run the Hal Turner
show has more to do withthe repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed
the kind of one-sided shows we hear today. Remember, an early SW
broadcaster, Rev. Norris of Red Lion, made history by his refusal to follow
the doctrine. He also lost his licenses. The repeal of Fairness also ushered
in today's talk radio, from Rush to Savage to Stern. None would work without
the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...


Yep. Nothing like the conductivity of the Midwest. Today, noise
effectively
kills them within maybe 150 miles, less in big metros like Milwaukee.



At least as important was the lack of rural electrification, and all the
electrical noise which comes with that.

Frank Dresser

David Eduardo wrote:

Africa was left out of my argument, as there was no commercial radio in most
of that continent in the 40's through the 60's. Except for Angola, which I
believe had, like Portugal, commercial stations,

Also Mozambique. Remember all of the "Radio Clube do..." in both Angola and
Mozambique? (These all went away when radio was nationalized upon
independence.)

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...

Is it a coincidence that the rise of domestic SW came after the decline
of
the radio networks?

I don't think so. I think the rise of stations that would run the Hal
Turner
show has more to do withthe repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed
the kind of one-sided shows we hear today. Remember, an early SW
broadcaster, Rev. Norris of Red Lion, made history by his refusal to
follow
the doctrine. He also lost his licenses. The repeal of Fairness also
ushered
in today's talk radio, from Rush to Savage to Stern. None would work
without
the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Yes! Now we're back where we started. The question of if the FCC language
which bans domestic SW content still applies.

I remember the Rev. John M. Norris, or at least his SW station quite well.
In fact, I have a WINB QSL dated Aug. 27, 1970 right here in front of me.

I think you've got something with the Fairness Doctirine connection. I
typed "norris fairness doctrine" into the Google search box, and this is the
first thing that came up:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270.html#FOOTNOTE_40

This article is actually about internet censorship, but it parallels
internet censorship with some of the history of the government's efforts to
control broadcast speech and it's unintended consequences. One quote from
the article:

"That the FCC determined in 1981 and 1985 that content regulation was
counterproductive to achieving public interest goals would suggest that the
notion of effective content regulation has been thoroughly discredited. "

The Fairness Doctrine was finally eliminated in August, 1987.

As far as I can tell, the FCC pulled out of the political content regulation
business entirely. And the same line of thought would make the FCC domestic
SW content ban unenforcable. Good for the FCC! Good for Rev. Norris, too!

Frank Dresser

"tommyknocker" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

He didn't do much broadcasting in Spanish.

He felt that US rock was so popular in Latin America (a fact) that a
real US
station in English with American formatics could be a huge winner. If it
had
been satellite delivered to local FMs, he would have been right.

Actually, the USA is trying pretty much the same thing with Radio Sawa.
But Sawa is in Arabic (the native tongue of the target listeners) and is
broadcast on local FM, even though the source is VOA in DC, sent to the
transmitters by satellite. Glenn Hauser's DXLD has carried articles on
Radio Sawa. Supposedly it's #1 among young adults in Jordan, although
how they determine this is a mystery to me.

the audience research is done by Edison Research in New Jersey. They did
music testing in a bunch of freer Arab nations, such as Egypt, to determine
the music to play. And they have done follow up audience surveys using
normal random probability sample polling. The music is both in English and
Arabic.

The station concept came from Norm Pattiz of the VOA, and was consulted by
noted US programmer Andy Bloom. Sawa is also on MW stations, I believe, to
get into some of the less accessible nations as well as on SW.

"RedOctober90" wrote in message
om...
"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.

I don't see a problem with domestic SW. I proudly support WBCQ which
promotes freedom of speech.

How? Are you not free to speak today? (The Constitution only guarantees that
the government will not restrict that freedom, not that they will give you a
freee soap box.)

I think this SW restriction was designed
to limit the use of free speech and let big corporations take over the
airwaves.

The restriction came form the 30's, not the 70's. And it was intended to
preserve the intended purpose of the clear channel stations, which was to
serve rural America as well as large cities. When the rule was enacted
originally, the whole USA had around 780 radio staitons.

If they started to fine some of the show hosts on WBCQ that
to me would be an attack on the freedom of speech that the
constitution supposely protects.

Show hosts, announcers and disk jockeys are not fined by the FCC.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message om...
"The Green Troll" wrote in message
m...
Doug Smith W9WI wrote in message
...
47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

Ergo, a shortwave station reflecting Cuban culture and promoting
competition (aimed at undermining Castro) would be ineligible.

that would promote both capitalism and democracy, both American values.

Only international competition, with economic and political cooperation.

-- Infidel Castrato http://www.rev.net/~aloe/politics

"--exray--" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...

Is it a coincidence that the rise of domestic SW came after the decline

of

the radio networks?

keyphrase doesn't compute. "Rise of domestic SW" ???

As far as I can tell, the FCC pulled out of the political content
regulation
business entirely. And the same line of thought would make the FCC
domestic
SW content ban unenforcable. Good for the FCC! Good for Rev. Norris,
too!

I think the FCC is at least cognizant enough to consider Domestic SWBC a
non-issue. Outside of a couple dozen radiofolk here, who would listen
to Domestic SW?

You have the key. No listeners.

Even in supposed hotbeds of SW listening, the use of SW is much exaggerated.
When I was working in South America in the 60's, I inspected the radio
ratings questionnaires for tens of thousands of people. I never, ever saw a
SW station reported in any city with local radio.

"--exray--" wrote in message
...

I think the FCC is at least cognizant enough to consider Domestic SWBC a
non-issue. Outside of a couple dozen radiofolk here, who would listen
to Domestic SW?

There's a small group of true believers, like The Order types and the late
Timothy McVeigh who have certainly earned the attention of the government.
And the Southern Poverty Law Center would love to take credit for forcing
the government to harass station owners who carry these programs. There has
been a long history of such legal broadcasting harassment, and the
independent stations are most vunerable. But I'm not aware of any attempt
to control domestic SW broadcasting, even after Bill Clinton's "Hate radio"
remarks.

Howcum? I suppose it could be that the self-justifing activists, in and out
of government, don't really want to bother harassing the few who take
domestic SW radio programming seriously. Or they know the rules prohibiting
domestic SW programming are unenforceable.

I suppose it could be either. But I think the activists are looking for
more productive ways to make pains in the asses of themselves.



They seem to license any and all comers anyway. So where are the big
pirate guys who want to have their say legitimately?

The only big US pirate guy I can think of is Alan Weiner. The others seem
content broadcasting at low power a few times a year.

Could it be impractical financially to have domestic SW?
Uh, I think so.

-Bill


It exists, even if it's impractical. Certainly not as big time commercial
radio, but mostly as brokered shows hosted by evangalists and the paranoid
fringe element. At least, that's where the money comes from.

Frank Dresser