|
| "Because there's nothing on TV!"TM | ||
|
This web site is part of David H. Citron's |
 and South Florida Radio History |
|
| * NOW IN OUR 12TH YEAR * ESTABLISHED DECEMBER 7, 1995 * | ||
The FCC: Radio's Worst Enemy
|
The FCC: Radio's Worst Enemy
(Keene, NH -- April 17, 2008).... Like most people in radio and many of their listeners, Free Talk Live co-host Ian Bernard has strong opinions about radio consolidation and the FCC. Bernard wrote a commentary about the FCC as a letter to the editor of TALKERS Magazine -- but they only published less than half of it! Read the unexpurgated version below. A Sarasota native, Bernard created Free Talk Live in 2002, when he was just 22. Six years later, the liberty-oriented talk show can now be heard on the radio in over 30 markets, and also via podcast anywhere. Ian and co-host Mark were among the many libertarians who moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project, to promote individual freedom and limited government. Free Talk Live (FTL) is broadcast for three hours, six nights a week. But in south Florida, Free Talk Live is heard only on Saturdays, on WFTL 850 from 7 'til 9 PM. If you'd like to hear FTL on WFTL every night, you might want to contact Ken Pauli at James Crystal Radio Group (954 315-1515) and express your opinion. Thanks for offering your commentary, Ian! I'm sure a lot of radio fans and radio professionals will be interested. | |||||||||||||||||
The FCC: Radio's Worst EnemyBy Ian Bernard, host of Free Talk LiveWhy is radio so reluctant to change? Why aren't owners taking more risks and innovating? Why does new-media seem so agile and radio so clumsy?
It would be wrong of me to ignore consolidation as a legitimate answer to the above questions. Consolidation is centralization of ownership. As a general rule, the more centralization, the more inefficiency. However, as there have been several articles written studying the effects of consolidation on the radio industry, instead of focusing on the centralization of ownership, I will focus on the greatest threat to the radio industry: centralization of power via the FCC. TALKERS Magazine's Michael Harrison has rightfully suggested the FCC no longer control the content of radio stations. Their nebulous regulations serve only to confuse and impoverish us, while enriching the bureaucrats running the FCC. (You don't think those excessive "indecency" and "obscenity" fines go to charity, do you?) Of course, the immediate objection of government apologists is, "What about the children?" Just hang on. I'll get to the children. Content regulation is only one of the objectionable areas in which the FCC has involved itself. Licensing and transmitter regulation are no doubt quite frustrating to station owners, engineers, and programmers. What's that? You own/program an AM station and want to bring your content to FM listeners? Better ask mommy government for permission first! In the hopes of advancing their business, stations pay untold thousands of dollars in fees, beg, plead, and wait. Did I mention the waiting? Customer service isn't the government's strong suit. Arbitrary decisions and violence are what they do best. Isn't the fear of men with guns why radio station owners jump through the FCC's hoops, anyway?
Those FCC hoops are one of the main reasons new-media is more agile than radio. They don't have to spend their time and money pleading their "protectors" for permission to do their business. They spend that time creating content. I don't know about you, but I got into this business to profit from entertaining listeners, not fill out FCC paperwork. Can you imagine for a moment if you had to beg a government bureaucrat for permission to put your station's website online? What would it be like if you faced jail time for offering live streaming or podcasts on your station's website without government approval? If tomorrow the FCC proposed regulating Internet audio websites, in the name of "protecting radio from unfair competition", would you support that? If you answered yes to that question, you may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome: n. A phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor. (American Heritage Dictionary) Some people in this business clearly believe they can regulate their way to success. We can hear evidence of this attitude in the NAB's calls for interference in the satellite merger or the HD Alliance's calls to mandate that satellite receivers contain HD radio. I hope they learn this axiom before it's too late: "Those who attempt to control others should not be surprised when they find themselves controlled." You see, the FCC doesn't exist to protect children or to protect your station from interference. That's just a cover for their extortion racket. The FCC is nothing more than a giant parasite that has somehow managed to convince its host that it's necessary for its survival. It is time radio broadcasters threw off the chains of the 20th century. Besides reducing overhead and increasing your time to actually do radio, abolishing the FCC would mean an immediate increase in competition in the industry. Competition is good! It keeps you on your toes, always trying to "do it better" or differently than the other guys. While the FCC's limiting of competition might appear to allow you to rest on your laurels, all it's really doing is tying you down as new-media runs circles around you. Frequency homesteading and interference claims can easily be handled without the FCC via the judicial system or free-market arbitration and title insurance. In regards to "protecting the children", allowing government to act in place of parents is a dangerous and slippery slope. If consumers are demanding ways to shield their children from adult content, the marketplace will develop them. In fact, without the FCC around, that sort of technological development could be done very quickly. (One idea might be radios that only tune family-friendly frequencies.) Now that we've identified the problem, the tricky part is figuring out how to get rid of the FCC. One can always attempt to change the system from the inside - certainly the slowest and most inefficient option. My fantasy is mass civil disobedience on the part of station owners. Of course, this option is easy for me to suggest as I don't have a cash investment at stake. The other choice is to start a conversation with our business associates and on the air with our listeners. The option of abolishing the FCC should be on the table for discussion. We should not be debating proposed regulations but debating the legitimacy of the FCC itself. The FCC is slowly strangling the life out of the radio business. The damage it has done to our industry is resulting in the hemorrhaging of cash and listeners. Though, who is really at fault? Is it the gangsters running the FCC or is it us for putting up with them?
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Check out these new Bumper Stickers from our friends at Liberty Stickers |
|
|
|
|
Page hatched on:
April 17, 2008
|
Free JavaScripts provided by The JavaScript Source
