The Steel Guitar Forum

....I was born even before pizza..... www.genejones.com

Up here in the great White North, we have an outstanding alternative station, call letters are CKUA. They've been around for about 75 years, they were government sponsored until just a few years ago, then went public. They specialized in non-top forty music, especially world music, jazz, blues and alternative country. In order to survive, they do pledge drives twice a year and have been above water for about 5 years now. They also have one of the best libraries in North America and very knowledgeable and low-keyed disk jockeys. It's a national treasure and now an international treasure as it is an Internet-broadcast.

Keep in mind that Clear Channell not only owns over a thousand radio stations. They own most of the concert sheds in America and have a controlling interest in Ticketmaster. Is it realistic to think that they would have an open mind to what gets played on their stations.This is a monopoly that needs to be broken up. Please call your congressman.
BB

"Assume that you are an idiot. Now, assume that you are a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain
Seriously though, I think we all need to consider the fact that radio in this country is basically "free", as in there is no charge to listen to it. Well, you get what you pay for, i.e., someone else's playlist. I believe that we have ten times the diversity in music available today. It may not all be available for free on the AM and FM bands, but it's there (internet, XM, etc...). My in-laws live in central Texas, way out in the sticks. Seeing his potential electronic access problems, my bro-in-law bought a satellite for tv and internet. I was astounded by the number of music-only channels available, and the variety (three kinds of blues, R&B, funk, classic rock, neo-classic rock, african, classic african, etc..., 24-hrs a day). Bands and artists you'll never hear on conventional radio. IMHO, I wouldn't get too upset about AM/FM. It will likely go the way of the railroads. I just think we've gotten too accustomed to expecting a relatively high quality product for free. Like cable tv, there's so much out there, maybe a subscriber system could satisfy just about everybody. Whoda thunk a Home & Garden network would have succeeded a few years ago?<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Randy Pettit on 22 March 2002 at 09:19 AM.]</p></FONT>

Bruce,

Is there any organizations that are allready in place that are dealing with this issue ?

Any pending anti-trust lawsuits ?

I will call my congressmen and look into it.

Bob

..I'm sorry to say that I'm not up on recent events as much as I should be...these are big guys you are going after, and generally it takes a big guy to beat a big guy...what was the trigger that set off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft? Seems it would take a situation where the big guys stepped on the wrong toes in order for an effective action to be initiated.

Letter writing will make your opinion known, but I guess I'm jaded..I don't really think it will spur anyone to action...who finally got pissed enough at Microsoft to try to take them down?...

Netscape?

Not to drag up an old topic, but -- regarding economic deregulation, here's an example of why it's generally good, and why market domination by one company is not necessarily bad.

Take UPS for example. USP provides a pretty good service for the money (although I know some here would argue otherwise). They pretty much dominate domestic ground transportation of parcels. Yet, they wouldn't be around if not for the deregulation of the trucking industry.

Things have gone down hill since the deregulation of people's taste.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>Not to drag up an old topic, but -- regarding economic deregulation, here's an example of why it's generally good, and why market domination by one company is not necessarily bad.
Take UPS for example. USP provides a pretty good service for the money (although I know some here would argue otherwise). They pretty much dominate domestic ground transportation of parcels. Yet, they wouldn't be around if not for the deregulation of the trucking industry.</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...Tom, I think that's apples and oranges..

..if you wish to ship anything beyond a very localized radius of operations you must either deal with many small operations, each with their own infrastructures of warehousing, vehicle fleets, tracking systems and prices...or you can operate with a large system such as UPS that can utilize both economy of scale and the vast advantage of a large infrastructure of warehousing/distribution points, vehicle fleets, drivers, tracking systems, airplanes, pilots...all owned by and controlled by a central source....this makes common sense and therefore economic sense with a nationwide or worldwide shipping operation of general commodities for the average retail consumer...

...many of the other trucking operations or air freight operations specialize in only commercial shipping, or bulk shipping, or air freight for commercial shipments...they are specialized and may work efficiently with a smaller infrastructure than UPS because they serve a more specific clientele than UPS, who ships mostly general commodities for the consumer trade (like us steel guitar players shipping stuff to each other...you don't hire a consolidator to ship a volume pedal...

...radio stations, on the other hand, do not by their nature require a large infrastructure to successfully serve a consumer clientele..individual stations can do that quite well, limited only by the power of their transmitters or the distance from their transmitters...their is no economy of scale benefiting the consumer to be gained from consolidating radio stations...and there is no advantage of infrastruture to be gained by consolidating stations...the only reason to consolidate radio stations is to control the format of the stations in order to control the advertising dollars that the stations generate...it is simply big business bringing in dollars in an efficient manner..

...the consolidation of transportation and infrastruture by UPS benefits the consumer by making it economically possible to ship personal consumer goods that would otherwise be impossible or impossibly expensive to ship....any economy of scale gained by the consolidation of radio stations is not to benefit the consumer (listener) but is only to benefit the owners of the station...

...one deregulation serves the public good, the other doesn't...that's the difference the way I see it...<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Pat Burns on 25 March 2002 at 05:43 PM.]</p></FONT>

Pat, I agree that transportation and broadcasting are not easily compared. I was more-or-less speaking in general terms about economic deregulation.

However, I would say that with regard to deregulation of the broadcasting industry, and whether it benefits the consumer -- that depends on what one means by "benefits the consumer."

I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I'm just presenting a counter-point to your points, for the sake of discussion.

You've said that radio does not need a large infrastructure to successfully serve a clientele. That is true from one point of view. But, I would argue that a larger system of broadcasting stations could serve the general public better than the old system.

For example, imagine a network of radio stations wherein the frequencies corresponded to certain types of programming, and this correspondence was consistant across the country.

For example, you could have news programs on one frequency, talk radio on another frequency, alt. country on another, jazz on another, and on and on and on. So, no matter where you are, you simply tune in to your favorite frequency to hear what you want to hear.

I think this would be beneficial and I think most people would prefer such a system.

I admit that this isn't likely to happen overnight, but then again, such change usually takes a while. After all, the trucking industry was deregulated twenty years ago and it's still shaking itself out.

But, such a system of radio stations is likely to happen a lot sooner with deregulation than with the former regulations.

Also, things are different now in that radio is not the only means of recieving a broadcast. There is both satellite and cable radio available.

Here's a better comparison -- In the old days, a lot of TV programming was done on the local level. Nowadays, it's mostly all dictated by the network. This is both good and bad, but I believe the interest of the public is better served with the current system of TV broadcasting. <FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 25 March 2002 at 09:02 PM.]</p></FONT>

..Tom, those are good examples and good analogies..the problem I see with the concept in broadcasting is that a single frequency for, say, talk radio means that the content of the talk is controlled by one party...or the content of the jazz frequency (who gets to be heard)is controlled by one party...and of course one party can control all the frequencies...imagine going to one store for your meat, another for your potatoes...I think everyone would end up getting the same meat...

...I think it's acceptable to consolidate materials/things for more efficient distribution...I don't think it's acceptable to consolidate ideas or other intellectual material for distribution to the point that competition is eliminated...networks become too powerful when the can dictate and control all intellectual content (like what the news will be and how it is presented)...I believe strong competition is necessary to maintain freedom of speech over the airwaves...

Pat, that's a good point. I agree that there should be competition. But, that's why I mentioned cable radio and satellite radio -- there is competition out there. Also, there is both AM and FM.

Besides, it doesn't have to be exactly the way I proposed earlier -- that was just me thinking off-the-cuff.

I doubt that one company would totally dominate all of the stations in the country, so what I've proposed above is somewhat unrealistic, I admit.

However, it's not unrealistic to thing that the industry could begin to organize itself toward something that would resemble the way cable TV is set up today. That is, one network broadcasts on one frequency and another broadcasts on a different frequency.

That would be somewhat like I've proposed above, but would allow for competition, too -- just like cable TV. What would happen most likely is that you'd have certain networks specializing in certain types of broadcasts -- like cable TV. You'd have news networks, country music networks, etc.

I admit that something like that is far-fetched, but it's not impossible.

I remember when the Buddy Emmons/Danny Gatton live CD came out. I was driving home from a gig and listening to the local NPR station jazz show and the DJ played the ENTIRE album.

Try finding that on your local commercial station. Your local commercial station is probably owned by Clear Channel Communications, who own most of MY local commercial stations.

When a company gets that big, whether its a record label or a radio station, it's no longer controlled by the music guys. It's controlled by the lawyers and the bean-counters who answer only to the stockholders and the advertisers. Perhaps in some instances this might be good, but in most situations I believe it leads to homogeneity. Like McDonald's and Olive Garden wiping out the Mom and Pop restaurants of days gone by. The cities of America have become homogenized to the point that there's no local food, local culture, local music, or local anything, except weather.

Check out the lyrics to the great Michael Murphey song that Johnny Lee had a hit on 20 years ago, "Cherokee Fiddle."

"The Indians are dressing up like Cowboys,

And the Cowboys are putting leather and turquoise on.

The music is sold by lawyers,

And the fools who fiddle in the middle of the station are gone."

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

Herb, don't worry -- NPR stations are not being bought by Clear Channel (at least as far as I know). In fact, last I heard, there were still quite a few NPR stations left out there.

But, you do make some good points -- homogenization isn't necessarily all that great. However, it must not be all that bad either -- more immigrants are moving into this country right now than in any time in it's history, so there must be something still good about it -- and think about all the local culture they're leaving behind to come here

I agree that it would be nice to be able to choose to live in the past. It's interesting to note that "Cherokee Fiddle" was written almost thirty years ago, and even back then people were lamenting about the negative aspects of change. I guess the good ol' days are never really the good ol' days
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 26 March 2002 at 04:00 PM.]</p></FONT>

Sounds to me like Clear Channel is doing pretty good> Maybe they know something we don`t .Like how to run a radio station.There have been a couple of small radio stations around here that played alot of good country but they never last.They just can`t get the audiance they need to bring in the advertiseing bucks. So I guess we will have to pay our $10 a month for XM radio and boycott the big buisness radio. just my thoughts Becky

There's an inside joke that Clear Channel is the Enron of the entertainment industry. They have an incredible debt service therefore they are figuring out every which way to make more money.For example ,the facilities charge on Ticketmaster tickets goes right to Clear Channel's bottom line.Also they are now putting a parking charge per ticket, not per car. Tom ,do you have any idea what it costs to get a record played on a clear channel station. How can this possibly be a good thing for the consumer. Keep in mind that up until five years ago a corperation could not own any more than eight stations. Oh well.
BB