"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...

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