Freeform radio in yesterday's NY Times
luckydog
That's the title of an article that ran on yesterday's NY Times Op-Ed
page. The author offers up the idea that approval of an XM-Sirius
merger should come with conditions to ensure "space for public service
and independent programming." He also explains how the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 spurred on consolidation in terrestrial
broadcasting and describes some of the detrimentral affects it had on
radio in general.
The following excerpt flows out of a short bit about the digital
spectrum for radio. It was interesting to see the example he used to
justify his proposal.
"To date, the F.C.C. has imposed few restrictions on the way radio
stations use these new outlets. The commission is both giving away a
precious public resource and squandering a historic opportunity to
enliven the airwaves.
"Fortunately, there is a solution: Require every station that wants to
add to its holdings to broadcast a minimum level of original, live and
local material. This proposal is based on one of the most successful
broadcast policies in American history. In the 1960s, when the F.C.C.
opened the FM dial, AM stations rushed to acquire licenses - but then
simulcast the same shows they were already playing. This was not what
regulators had in mind, so they ruled that FM stations had to play
original content on at least half of their programming hours. Because
radio companies didn't want to invest much in FM, they ceded control
of their studios to young people and amateur broadcasters. The result
was the advent of free-form music radio, with programs so fresh and
compelling that listeners flocked to FM and stayed there - at least
until corporate broadcasters standardized it, too."
Wouldn't it be nice if this could actually have some positive effect
on radio's future?
Here's a link if anyone wants to read the whole thing
jt