[BC] BUREAU ADOPTS ORDER TO MODIFY FM DIGITAL

[Broadcast List USER]

More to the point, we have a lot of AMs in trouble.  Young people  
don't know what the AM button is use for, and they don't care.  They  
are not hearing anything compelling to them, so they just don't care.   
They are gone and won't be back.  Once we die off, it's over.

A lot of FMs are in trouble.  Yes, we can argue how we got there, and  
the consolidators really helped (this is not the point to argue), but  
we are there.  The smaller ones, and those in small markets, and those  
80-90 rim shots are hard hit.  Of course, many of the big stations are  
in trouble too, because the consolidator is either bankrupt or nearly  
so.  Cutbacks are the norm, and getting worse, and this is done to try  
to stay afloat.

But, the real issue is that sales revenue is down, and by a huge amount.

So, if you add a bunch of new FMs, or DAB stations (even worse as  
there would be many times more of them) all you are doing is hastening  
the demise of everyone.  The only saving grace is that if you add DAB  
it is going to be a LONG roll out, so the pain will not come  
immediately.  If the FM band is just extended down, radios are already  
available.  I own several Sony radios that would already cover  
channels five and six.  There are other world radios that go even  
lower.  I bought my wife a Sangen for the gym that goes down to either  
69 or 62 MHz, I forget which, and I wonder where there are stations  
below 76 or 72 MHz.  It doesn't matter though.

The roll out for FM below 88 MHz would be MUCH faster because the  
receivers are already not just available, but in place.

SO, let's just assume FM for its faster acceptance.  Suddenly you have  
SIXTY percent more stations (OK, maybe not quite that many in the  
severely short-spaced NE, Chicago and Southern California Class B  
areas).  Now, IMAGINE THAT!  Imagine having per station revenues cut  
by over one-third of what it is today.  How sick would the industry  
suddenly be?  I imagine, VERY SICK!

Yes, the AM operators who move to FM would be better off.  In fact,  
they could be MUCH better off as many of them are closely held, and  
they would only have the debt or additional debt of a transmitter site  
build.  On the other hand, how many AMs have the money to do an FM  
transmitter build.  More to the point, with NIMBYs getting to be a  
bigger PITA than ever, how do you actually do an FM transmitter build  
in a reasonable amount of time?  I know an FM station that lost its  
tower site, and in order to jump to one nearby is paying over $14,000  
a month in tower rent.  Are those new FMs, owned by AMs on their way  
to death going to be able to pay that kind of rent in order to co- 
locate?  I doubt it.

We need more FM stations like we need a huge performance tax, or some  
other huge financial drain.

--chip

On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:48 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 15
> From: "Dana  Puopolo" <dpuopolo at usa.net>
>
> It helps the business by giving AMs a chance/place to compete. Fact  
> is, most
> AMs are (still) individually owned by the Scott's of this world. It  
> gives the
> business a chance by giving them a place to put a REAL digital radio
> band-allowing radio to compete with other digital  
> technologies.....or do you
> (also) believe that IBOC (with it's GREAT sounding 48 kbps HD2  
> sound) is a
> panacea for radio too?
>
> The future of radio ISN'T analog-it is DIGITAL-but IBOC isn't the  
> answer!!!
>
> -D
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 09:47 PM PST, 02/01/2010
> From: Broadcast List USER <Broadcast at fetrow.org>
>
> You didn't explain how that helps the BUSINESS!
>
> I believe it helps kill it off.
>
> Explain how it doesn't.
>
> It isn't as if our existing business is healthy.
>
> We have very major chains in bankruptcy.
>
> Explain how this helps the health of the industry!/
>
> --chip