Could someone refresh my memory on just how many media outlets a
corporation can own in one market?? I seem to have lost track of the
FCC rulings on that subject.

It would seem that, at least with regards to radio, this kind of
decision will have a huge impact. If radio is truly a personal medium,
then it becomes very hard for a large corporation to continue to meet
the needs of the immediate community. I'm not sure how a ruling in
favor of the large conglomerates would affect small town America, but
certainly it would have an effect on those smaller stations that are
based around major markets. That would seem a shame to loose the
personal input and local flavors of those smaller stations - in favor
of a bigger signal. Local businesses opting to spend their advertising
dollars with the larger signal stations - i.e., those that reach
50-100 miles - would be a waste for that business if they only pull
their customers from 10 - 15 miles away. So, then maybe the point to
bring up to little stations is that your sales staff needs to do a
better job educating the local businesses.

But it is the almighty dollar that wins in the end - so the FCC needs
to find a way to help smaller stations stay afloat while not loosing
the revenue that the larger corporations can generate. It is much the
same for newspaper outlets. Around here, the local papers have all
been bought up by Liberty or Daily Herald. There really aren't any
local papers anymore in this area. Somehow, this problem is sounding
much like the WAL-MART dilemma. So, question is, what do we, grass
roots America, do about it? How do we present our case to the FCC
without "expecting you to hire a $500 an hour lobbyist
to get heard" ???

D Peter Maus wrote:
From AllAccess.com:




FCC Opens Ownership Review Docket (Again) "You should expect your
government to do more this time." It's been a long time coming, but
the FCC late MONDAY finally released its Further Notice Of Proposed
Rule Making on ownership rules.

The review, ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, includes reviews of opwership limits for local TV and radio,
crossownership of broadcast and newspaper interests in the same
market, the "dual network rule" preventing common ownership of two of
the "big four" TV networks, and the "UHF discount" used in
determining a company's national reach for ownership cap purposes.
The Commission has expanded the comment period to 120 days for the
docket and will hold six public hearings across the country on the
issue,

Chairman KEVIN MARTIN said that "the Commission should take into
account the competitive realities of the media marketplace while also
ensuring the promotion of the important goals of localism and
diversity. As the item indicates, the Commission will look carefully
at the relationship between media ownership and localism as it moves
forward with this rulemaking. To that end, the Commission will
incorporate into this proceeding the efforts undertaken on this issue
since the last examination of our media ownership rules."

Copps: Demand More

Commissioner MICHAEL COPPS. who complained that "localism is not
front-and-center in this proceeding" and that it does not offer
specific plans to increase minority ownership, warned that "in
WASHINGTON, things aren't always what they seem. In fact, this
innocuous-looking document initiates the single most important public
policy debate that the FCC will tackle this year. Don't let its
slimness fool you. It means that this Commission has begun to decide
on behalf of the American people the future of our media. It means
deciding whether or not to accelerate media concentration, step up
the loss of local news and change forever the critical role
independent newspapers perform for our Country."

"We have a choice to make," COPPS added. "Will we repeat the mistakes
of the past? Or will we work for a process and an outcome that
respect the millions of Americans that care deeply about their
communities' media and what their kids watch, hear and read? We'll
soon know what choice the FCC makes.... If you see hearings in your
hometown, instead of a just a few preselected cities, you'll know. If
you see FCC Commissioners come to listen to your point of view
personally, instead of expecting you to hire a $500 an hour lobbyist
to get heard, you'll know. If the FCC contracts for independent,
well-funded studies and seeks public comment on those studies,
instead of buying a few-half hearted, time-crunched papers that slide
into the record without comment, you'll know. And, critically, if the
FCC shows you the specific rules that will reshape the American media
before forcing a vote, instead of rushing from this short document to
a final vote, you'll know.

"You should expect your government to do more this time."


Also complaining was Commissioner JONATHAN ADELSTEIN, who charged
that "the manner in which the Commission is launching this critical
proceeding is totally inadequate. It is like submitting a high-school
term paper for a Ph.D. thesis. This Commission failed in 2003, and if
we don't change course, we will fail again.

"The large media companies wanted, and today they get, a blank check
to permit further media consolidation. The Notice is so open-ended
that it will permit the majority of the Commission to allow giant
media companies to get even bigger at the time, place and manner of
their choosing. That is the reason I have refused to support
launching this proceeding until now, and it is why I am dissenting
from the bulk of this Notice. This Notice is thin gruel to those
hoping for a meaty discussion of media ownership issues."

wrote in message
oups.com...
Could someone refresh my memory on just how many media outlets a
corporation can own in one market?? I seem to have lost track of the
FCC rulings on that subject.

It is complex. Basically, for radio it is 8 stations in markets with a
certain number of facilities, with a sub cap on AM and FM. In smaller
markets it goes to fewer stations. Markets are now determined by Arbitreon
market definitons, with non-rated markets using coverage overlaps and some
additonal criteria. There is an FCC short course at
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html

It would seem that, at least with regards to radio, this kind of
decision will have a huge impact. If radio is truly a personal medium,
then it becomes very hard for a large corporation to continue to meet
the needs of the immediate community.

I would agree in some cases. However, each station has its own program
director and staff, and each competes with every other station in the
market. Since most good PDs know that local involvment is key in adult
demos, this does not suffer, or the station goes down in ratings.

I'm not sure how a ruling in
favor of the large conglomerates would affect small town America, but
certainly it would have an effect on those smaller stations that are
based around major markets.

Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and tv stations they might
own.

That would seem a shame to loose the
personal input and local flavors of those smaller stations - in favor
of a bigger signal. Local businesses opting to spend their advertising
dollars with the larger signal stations - i.e., those that reach
50-100 miles - would be a waste for that business if they only pull
their customers from 10 - 15 miles away. So, then maybe the point to
bring up to little stations is that your sales staff needs to do a
better job educating the local businesses.

There is not going to be any change in radio ownership, if you believe the
predictions. What might change is the newspaper aspect, and a lowering of
trhe caps in smaller markets or a redifinition to non rated markets that
makes them smaller and allows fewer stations.

But it is the almighty dollar that wins in the end - so the FCC needs
to find a way to help smaller stations stay afloat while not loosing
the revenue that the larger corporations can generate.

Small stations are small stations, no matter who owns them. They are either
inferior facilities in bigger markets or stations in smaller makets. Any
change will not affect technical operations and power. It will effect who
can own what in each market area. A small station owned by a big company is
still a small station.

It is much the
same for newspaper outlets. Around here, the local papers have all
been bought up by Liberty or Daily Herald. There really aren't any
local papers anymore in this area. Somehow, this problem is sounding
much like the WAL-MART dilemma. So, question is, what do we, grass
roots America, do about it? How do we present our case to the FCC
without "expecting you to hire a $500 an hour lobbyist
to get heard" ???

Newspapers are consolidating because the business is shrinking badly, and
many papers are losing money. Only by combining infrastructure can most
survive... or by owning cash flowing electroinc media outlets.

"Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic
media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I thought newspapers could always own electronic mediums.

But the point you make about newspapers needing to consolidate
"because the business is shrinking badly, and many papers are losing
money. Only by combining infrastructure can most
survive... or by owning cash flowing electronic media outlets."
This is a very valid reason for allowing companies to own more media
outlets within a given market.

"This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I hadn't considered this situation from this particular viewpoint
- and it may very well be that the FCC is trying to save more local
media than I had originally considered.



David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Could someone refresh my memory on just how many media outlets a
corporation can own in one market?? I seem to have lost track of the
FCC rulings on that subject.

It is complex. Basically, for radio it is 8 stations in markets with a
certain number of facilities, with a sub cap on AM and FM. In smaller
markets it goes to fewer stations. Markets are now determined by Arbitreon
market definitons, with non-rated markets using coverage overlaps and some
additonal criteria. There is an FCC short course at
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html

It would seem that, at least with regards to radio, this kind of
decision will have a huge impact. If radio is truly a personal medium,
then it becomes very hard for a large corporation to continue to meet
the needs of the immediate community.

I would agree in some cases. However, each station has its own program
director and staff, and each competes with every other station in the
market. Since most good PDs know that local involvment is key in adult
demos, this does not suffer, or the station goes down in ratings.

I'm not sure how a ruling in
favor of the large conglomerates would affect small town America, but
certainly it would have an effect on those smaller stations that are
based around major markets.

Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and tv stations they might
own.

That would seem a shame to loose the
personal input and local flavors of those smaller stations - in favor
of a bigger signal. Local businesses opting to spend their advertising
dollars with the larger signal stations - i.e., those that reach
50-100 miles - would be a waste for that business if they only pull
their customers from 10 - 15 miles away. So, then maybe the point to
bring up to little stations is that your sales staff needs to do a
better job educating the local businesses.

There is not going to be any change in radio ownership, if you believe the
predictions. What might change is the newspaper aspect, and a lowering of
trhe caps in smaller markets or a redifinition to non rated markets that
makes them smaller and allows fewer stations.

But it is the almighty dollar that wins in the end - so the FCC needs
to find a way to help smaller stations stay afloat while not loosing
the revenue that the larger corporations can generate.

Small stations are small stations, no matter who owns them. They are either
inferior facilities in bigger markets or stations in smaller makets. Any
change will not affect technical operations and power. It will effect who
can own what in each market area. A small station owned by a big company is
still a small station.

It is much the
same for newspaper outlets. Around here, the local papers have all
been bought up by Liberty or Daily Herald. There really aren't any
local papers anymore in this area. Somehow, this problem is sounding
much like the WAL-MART dilemma. So, question is, what do we, grass
roots America, do about it? How do we present our case to the FCC
without "expecting you to hire a $500 an hour lobbyist
to get heard" ???

Newspapers are consolidating because the business is shrinking badly, and
many papers are losing money. Only by combining infrastructure can most
survive... or by owning cash flowing electroinc media outlets.

"Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic
media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I thought newspapers could always own electronic mediums.

But the point you make about newspapers needing to consolidate
"because the business is shrinking badly, and many papers are losing
money. Only by combining infrastructure can most
survive... or by owning cash flowing electronic media outlets."
This is a very valid reason for allowing companies to own more media
outlets within a given market.

"This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I hadn't considered this situation from this particular viewpoint
- and it may very well be that the FCC is trying to save more local
media than I had originally considered.



David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Could someone refresh my memory on just how many media outlets a
corporation can own in one market?? I seem to have lost track of the
FCC rulings on that subject.

It is complex. Basically, for radio it is 8 stations in markets with a
certain number of facilities, with a sub cap on AM and FM. In smaller
markets it goes to fewer stations. Markets are now determined by Arbitreon
market definitons, with non-rated markets using coverage overlaps and some
additonal criteria. There is an FCC short course at
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html

It would seem that, at least with regards to radio, this kind of
decision will have a huge impact. If radio is truly a personal medium,
then it becomes very hard for a large corporation to continue to meet
the needs of the immediate community.

I would agree in some cases. However, each station has its own program
director and staff, and each competes with every other station in the
market. Since most good PDs know that local involvment is key in adult
demos, this does not suffer, or the station goes down in ratings.

I'm not sure how a ruling in
favor of the large conglomerates would affect small town America, but
certainly it would have an effect on those smaller stations that are
based around major markets.

Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and tv stations they might
own.

That would seem a shame to loose the
personal input and local flavors of those smaller stations - in favor
of a bigger signal. Local businesses opting to spend their advertising
dollars with the larger signal stations - i.e., those that reach
50-100 miles - would be a waste for that business if they only pull
their customers from 10 - 15 miles away. So, then maybe the point to
bring up to little stations is that your sales staff needs to do a
better job educating the local businesses.

There is not going to be any change in radio ownership, if you believe the
predictions. What might change is the newspaper aspect, and a lowering of
trhe caps in smaller markets or a redifinition to non rated markets that
makes them smaller and allows fewer stations.

But it is the almighty dollar that wins in the end - so the FCC needs
to find a way to help smaller stations stay afloat while not loosing
the revenue that the larger corporations can generate.

Small stations are small stations, no matter who owns them. They are either
inferior facilities in bigger markets or stations in smaller makets. Any
change will not affect technical operations and power. It will effect who
can own what in each market area. A small station owned by a big company is
still a small station.

It is much the
same for newspaper outlets. Around here, the local papers have all
been bought up by Liberty or Daily Herald. There really aren't any
local papers anymore in this area. Somehow, this problem is sounding
much like the WAL-MART dilemma. So, question is, what do we, grass
roots America, do about it? How do we present our case to the FCC
without "expecting you to hire a $500 an hour lobbyist
to get heard" ???

Newspapers are consolidating because the business is shrinking badly, and
many papers are losing money. Only by combining infrastructure can most
survive... or by owning cash flowing electroinc media outlets.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic
media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I thought newspapers could always own electronic mediums.

There are some grandfathered ones, but it is currently prohibited for new
purchases.

"This may have two benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I hadn't considered this situation from this particular viewpoint
- and it may very well be that the FCC is trying to save more local
media than I had originally considered.

The FCC policy since the later 40's has been based on localism, so this fits
the stated policy.

David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
"Most of what is being debated is to let newspapers own electronic
media.
This may have tow benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I thought newspapers could always own electronic mediums.

There are some grandfathered ones, but it is currently prohibited for new
purchases.

"This may have two benefits: it can save many newspapers that are
failing and
it can provide better news coverage to the radio and TV stations they
might
own."

I hadn't considered this situation from this particular viewpoint
- and it may very well be that the FCC is trying to save more local
media than I had originally considered.

The FCC policy since the later 40's has been based on localism, so this fits
the stated policy.


Irrelevant. You are BUSTED.