[opendtv] Re: STATEWIDE DTV TEST
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:22:27 -0800
So, we don't need to worry about your reception issues, I guess. I don't
think you shouldn't be watching something that you don't respect and don't
care about.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Cliff Benham
Enviado el: Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:11 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: STATEWIDE DTV TEST
Broadcasting has changed greatly in the time since I began working in it
in 1967.
At this point it has lost all my respect and earned all my dislike.
I no longer care what happens to it.
Cliff Benham
John Willkie wrote:
> Oops; I might have done a boo-boo. The number of renewals includes a
longer
> period than does the number of interim operating authorities. IOAs only
> started up in about the 1960's, and doesn't therefore include Dr. Barkley
> losing his station over pimping his "goat gland cure" over his station(s)
> and others from that era. Still, losing a station at renewal time was a
> rare event.
>
> John
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de John Willkie
> Enviado el: Saturday, December 20, 2008 7:25 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: STATEWIDE DTV TEST
>
> Cliff;
>
> "Renewal expectancy" was included in the 1996 Comm Act rewrite that you
> periodically rail against.
>
> The term hasn't actually been interpreted yet, since it hasn't come into
> effect for broadcast television stations. However, it does mean that
> broadcasters will be able to amortize on their financial statements the
> value of their license, which will tend to increase reported profits for
> those who choose to do so.
>
> And, yes, the renewal terms have changed since 1986, since postcard
renewals
> hadn't really gone into effect (for all states, anyway) by that time.
> License terms have been extended from three years to 5, then to seven
years
> (radio is now ten years.)
>
> Community "ascertainment" is basically dead, and the only PSAs that I see
> routinely these days are "sponsored PSAs" and the "CBS Cares" and "You
ought
> to know" niceties on NBC. I suspect that there are stations still
routinely
> producing and airing PSAs, but I don't even see ones from the AdCouncil
> these days.
>
> Actually, license renewals didn't bring any money into the FCC until the
> mid-1980's; the costs all went to ascertainment and attorneys to file
> sometimes foot-high renewal applications. Now, it's a post card. But,
> there are significant license renewal fees, and the "spectrum use fee"
which
> is more than $10,000 per year per station. So, you've got it upside down
> about "that sort of requirement" bringing enough money into the FCC's
> coffers.
>
> Simply said, renewal expectancy means that stations can expect to have
their
> license renewed unless they royally screw up. It's actually been the case
> since the 1930's -- with the "community based"/shakedowns virtually always
> nothing more than a reason to pay your attorney big sums of money, and to
> pay Pluria Marshall and the National Black Media Coalition (among others)
> big sums to go away. (I've had some interesting phone conversations with
> Pluria.)
>
> I was asked by a client in the mid-1980's to compile a list of all the
radio
> "interim operating authorities" that had existed in the history of the
FCC.
> These were granted when a licensee is found to be unfit to operate a
> station. An interim operator is selected in a simple process, while the
FCC
> decides who will have the standard license. (As of the 1960's, in the
wake
> of the WHDH/Boston case, to streamline things, an entity could only apply
> for interim or permanent authority, not both.)
>
> My client and her partner had applied for interim operating authority for
> KIFM, whose operator had been found to have lied to the FCC repeatedly.
> They were seeking funding and their potential lenders were asking how long
> it would take to select a "permanent" operator. To eliminate their only
> remaining competitor, they took on another partner. All told, they paid
> less than $2,000 to prepare and file their application, then more than a
bit
> to hire an attorney friend of mine (who never even took me out to lunch.)
>
> I was able -- after much manual- and foot-work; these things aren't
recorded
> in any database at the commission -- to come up with 38 radio interim
> operators. The shortest period was about two years, the longest about a
> dozen. I know of no more than a dozen TV interim operations. (Since that
> time, Henry B. Serafin lost his AM station due to lying, cheating in
on-air
> contests, and blatant racism in hiring, and the RKO-TV hammer finally came
> down.)
>
> So, there were more than 100,000 renewal applications filed with the FCC
> over the years, and only about 50 times were stations lost. "Renewal
> expectancy" is shortly to become de jure for TV, where it was once merely
> "de facto."
>
> Oh, and Bill Walton's brother Mark Walton headed one of the applicants for
> the full license of KIFM, and he fought to merge all the applicants to
avoid
> lengthy and basically foolish comparative hearings. As a result, my
friend
> from college Mary Sorrentino and her two partners only were able to
operate
> KIFM for less than 6 years. During which time she pioneered the "Cool
Jazz"
> format, also known here now as "Jazz San Diego Style." To me, that term
is
> an insult to Jazz and San Diego, but it's much different than her format
> these days. CBS now owns the station.
>
> John Willkie
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de Cliff Benham
> Enviado el: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:39 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: STATEWIDE DTV TEST
>
> John Willkie wrote:
> Before, renewals under the law, was a hit or miss (admittedly,
>> very few stations have ever had their renewal application denied.)
>>
>> Renewal expectancy makes it harder to deny a renewal. The content
offered
>> by this "umbilical" could change, though.
>
> Have FCC license renewal requirements changed since 1986? Before that
> time, FCC licenses were issued based on what the station committed to do
> "in the interest, convenience and necessity" of the public, major tenets
> of the Communications Act of 1934.
>
> Having worked for a TV station in the 60s that got it's initial license
> by making a huge public service commitment to the community the mainstay
> of it's license request, I experienced what that commitment meant.
>
> The day and night production crews stayed busy all the time producing
> and recording those public affairs programs.
>
> Apparently that sort of requirement doesn't bring enough money into the
> FCC coffers these days.
>
> What does 'renewal expectancy' mean?
>
> I spent just 5 minutes Googling the term and my immediate impression is
> that it seems to apply to licensees who have got their spectrum by
> bidding on it and winning it at $ubstantial co$t. The types of licenses
> mentioned were for cellular companies, MVPDs, and data distributors.
>
> Free, over the air broadcast licenses were not mentioned directly in
> what I read, but perhaps, TV becoming digital can be interpreted as data
> distribution.
>
> My immediate impression of 'renewal expectancy' is that since the
> license holder was the highest bidder, he will have to ante up much more
> money to the commission in the future to keep it. Apparently, service to
> the community is no longer an important part of license renewal, just
> how much money the FCC can grab from it's "customers".
> i.e., the more they pay, the greater their 'renewal expectancy'.
>
> As I recently said, now, it's just about the money.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
