"FCC allocation rules, of course, require them to provide signal coverage of
their communities of license, but a broadcast station that doesn't attract an
audience isn't much of a station no matter where its studios are located, and
audiences are generally loyal to local talent and their perspective on local
concerns, including local weather and emergency information."
I'll bet that users of Pandora or Spotify, or Sirius/XM, or Netflix, Hulu,
Sling TV, and so on, would take exception. And it would be possible to remotely
insert local news/weather, and local advertising, in the different broadcast
stations, even if these stations operate much as translators do now. In effect,
they would be translators, of a bigger regional network. More like the Euro
model, for radio or TV. The high value content matters most, not so much the
tower the signal comes from.
Also mentioned is viewer contributions to NPR or PBS stations. But again, I
don't think this is a credible concern. The vast majority of public stations do
not create their own content, right? It's just as easy to contribute by calling
one 800 telephone number, as it is by calling any other one, no?
More important, in my view, is that the FCC avoid giving a perception of
hypocrisy. Talk up this "localism" motherhood, to get all in the audience to
nod their heads in comfortable approval (just utter the same platitudes that
they are accustomed to hear, and no one will object), and then do exactly the
opposite. You know, much the same as the "Internet freedom" motherhood. Say one
thing, put the audience to sleep with the familiar rhetoric that they will
easily swallow, but then do whatever you can to achieve exactly the opposite
result. Funny thing is, for a small subset in the audience, this technique
actually works! Just read the comments, and a few of these sleepy heads reveal
themselves.
Bert
-----------------------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/opinions/0004/rule-change-could-bring-cost-savings-for-broadcasters/282177
Rule Change Could Bring Cost Savings for Broadcasters
But there could be consequences, some warn
October 27, 2017
By Randy J. Stine
The FCC's decision this week to dump the main studio rule will likely have
broadcasters across the country quickly reviewing their operations for
potential cost savings if they haven't done so already.
Banishment of the main studio rule could present significant savings
opportunities for broadcasters. The FCC said so itself in its Report and Order:
"Eliminating the main studio rule will produce substantial benefits.
Broadcasters will be able to redirect the significant costs associated with
complying with the main studio rule to programming, equipment upgrades,
newsgathering, and other services to the benefit of consumers."
Broadcasters appear to believe it, too. Cumulus Media in comments submitted
during the FCC proceeding detailed how the elimination of the main studio rule
would enable the company to save "significant costs in at least six markets by
no longer having to maintain a separate satellite main studio." Meanwhile, Cox
Media told the FCC its radio group "could reallocate $20,000-$50,000 per year
in certain markets" if the main studio rule was eliminated. And Crawford
Broadcasting, which owns 14 AM and 9 FM commercial broadcast stations,
estimated base costs associated with a separate local main studio can "easily
run $60,000 or more per year with a small space and minimal staffing, a
significant amount by any measure," according to comments it filed with the
commission.
Several broadcast industry observers contacted for this story believe
broadcasters will be eager to wring out as much savings as they can through
various measures. But they also caution that those who turn away from servicing
their local communities could suffer consequences.
Communications attorney Harry Cole at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth says
broadcasters have been keeping a close watch on the FCC proceedings since the
latest studio requirement rulemaking was proposed back on May 18, 2017. The
rule change takes effect once the decision is published in the Federal
Register, which is expected to be by early November.
"Since the elimination of the rule has been in the works for some time now,
with the ultimate result largely preordained, I would expect that most
broadcasters who perceive the opportunity of cost savings have been planning
out their moves in advance. It would not surprise me to see a number of moves
in the near-term intended to take advantage of the change. The elimination of
the studio requirement will allow consolidation of staff, equipment and
operations, and relieve licensees of various costs like rent, insurance,
duplicative staffing, equipment, etc. I assume that, at least for some if not
many, the savings could be substantial," Cole said.
Cole tells Radio World he believes there will be job losses as a result of
broadcaster's further consolidating operations. "I'm guessing that one of the
anticipated sources of cost savings will be in reduction of staff. If I'm
right, then the more stations that abandon their main studios, obviously the
more jobs are likely to be eliminated. I don't know how drastic the effect is
likely to be."
He adds, "However, it does occur to me that wholesale abandonment of any and
all local presence in a station's community could be a short-sighted move. A
crucial aspect of broadcasting's service that has long distinguished the
industry from other media sources is its localism, a quality often touted by
broadcast representatives. Moving station operations out of town will very
possibly undermine broadcasting's claimed identity as a local service, which
could have eventual adverse repercussions in the overall regulatory approach."
John Crigler, a partner with Garvey Schubert Barer in Washington, told Radio
World in an email that the elimination of some of the supplemental
requirements, such as staffing requirements, would have an immediate economic
effect. "In fact, the elimination of the two-person staffing requirement may
have a greater short term effect than elimination of physical location
requirements. The purpose of the staffing requirement - artificially applied to
the main studio rule by enforcement actions rather than rulemaking - was to
insure licensee control and not serve local needs.
"From the beginning, the staffing requirement was designed not to make business
sense. It required a licensee to keep two full-time employees on payroll even
if they had only symbolic duties to carry out. That loud tapping noise you hear
is the sound of LMAs being rewritten this very minute," Crigler said.
Crigler also warns broadcasters that potential cost savings earned by shutting
down main studios are likely to be offset by several countervailing economic
forces.
"Even without a main studio requirement, commercial and noncommercial stations
will have significant incentives to maintain roots in their local communities.
FCC allocation rules, of course, require them to provide signal coverage of
their communities of license, but a broadcast station that doesn't attract an
audience isn't much of a station no matter where its studios are located, and
audiences are generally loyal to local talent and their perspective on local
concerns, including local weather and emergency information. Without that
audience, local advertisers will abandon commercial stations. In addition to a
strong philosophical commitment to public service, noncommercial stations are
directly dependent on support from listeners for operating revenues. No local
support, no station," Crigler says.
This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication Radio World.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
