"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the
late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?

Yes. The FCC had a policy of localism. Local applicants had a huge advantage
over companies or distant applicants for new TV and FMs as well as AMs in
that period, and localism was required in the license renewal process via
ascertainment of needs, community (PA) programming, news content, etc. The
FCC was obcessed with localism. I do not know of any station or group that
lobbied for it as a policy, although plenty of applicants went for the
licenses based on pushing local ownership and management.



And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.


And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect
for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.

By the end of the 60's, the FM band was pretty full, especially in the major
markets, and the FCC was starting on its way to break up the clears.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM
operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?

FM was not profitable until the mid-70's on a major scale. In the 50's, the
number of FMs declined between 1950 and 1960... by nearly 25%. It was not
until the FCC mandated an end to simulcasting in the late 60's that FM
started to react, based on new programming, but forced by the FCC.

The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however.

No, they did everything they could to prevent editorializing, especially the
requirement to give equal time for opposing viewpoints. I never worked with
a station from 1959 through the 80's that editorialized. It was legally too
full of problems and could put the license in jeopardy.

And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness doctrine.

Yes, now we can all editorialize freely without having to notify, grant
replies, etc.