ClearChannel Complains About XM, Sirius Radio 344
andyring writes "In the latest attempt by a big corporation with a failing business model to win by legislation and not in the marketplace, ClearChannel is whining to the FCC about XM Radio's recent foray into localized traffic and weather reports." Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio.
"Failing business?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't they practically in a monopoly situation and trying to keep it that way?
And to think... (Score:5, Insightful)
I got heavily criticised in a story a couple of days ago for saying Clear Channel should get one of those awards for being against free speech.
They may be a private corporation but they have used the FCC and other ways of influencing gov't to make sure that they get to control certain aspects of the airwaves. They may not be John Ashcroft but they are certainly interested in controlling the market and what you hear. =P
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Insightful)
XM has many stations that don't even have commercials and cater to any musical taste. In my area we don't even have an FM Jazz station...
nope (Score:1, Insightful)
Ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
XM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Howard Stern (Score:1, Insightful)
Why focus on Clear Channel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Its rather simple really. A subscription costs X amount of money, and its a fixed number, sure thats great for paying the bills, but the only way to increase profit is to get additional subscribers, or by reducing overhead. Since the hardware utilized is rather expensive, the fastest way to eliminate overhead is through payroll, I don't see anyone taking a paycut in order to turn a profit.
Advertising on the other hand is on a sliding scale, based on location, time of day, length of time, etc... and therfor can be a real cash cow in some cases.
my 2 cents
Radio Killed the Radio Star (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad they can't argue on the aspects of quality programming. Broadcast Radio quality has fallen to the point where I simply don't listen to it. Local traffic? Ha, it's usually old information. I get better information via my cell phone. Quality music? Rrrrright.... if you like to hear the same seven songs played hundreds of times within a month. I'll play my own music - at least then I hear something other than those 7 (once-good, now-annoying) songs.
Clearly broadcast radio quality has fallen substantially, and Satellite is quickly filling the void. I don't have it yet, but I'm thinking about it.
The FCC is evolving (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, its a bit of a conspiracy theory, or at least its damn cynical, but just look at the slew of recent rulings favoring not what is best for Americans, but what is best for the corporation.
The difficult thing for me to swallow, is that Clearchannel is not so different from the sattelite services, in that 99.9% of Clearchannel programming, including traffic, weather and news, does not originate anywhere near the locality where it is transmitted. In Essence, Clearchannel is a sattelite broadcaster that uses conventional radio transmitter for the last-mile service delivery.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got it backwards. (Score:0, Insightful)
Clear Channel are not the ones trying to regulate the airwaves, the FCC is, and ohmigosh, it's their job to do that. The FCC operates under the rules that Congress creates. If people like Howard Stern really thought that their rights of free speech were being violated, then have them sue. Thing is, they'll lose.
This is about business, plain and simple, not free speech. The FCC threatened Clear Channel with a fine of $495,000 if they didn't pull Stern. While $495,000 might seem like a small matter, they were in danger of losing quite a bit more, things like station licenses. Seeing as how those licenses are what allows Clear Channel to exist in the first place, I'd say they were quite spooked.
Congress has a right to regulate commerce. AM/FM Radio is under the commerce clause because it is in the 'public domain'. XM is not, it's a subscription service, so while they can be regulated, they can't be regulated as much. The best example would be comparing it to Network vs. Cable television. Will you see unedited "Sex and the City" on NBC any time soon? No. If "shock jocks" want to make indecent comments, let them move to satellite radio.
XM worries... by npr stations too (Score:2, Insightful)
Precisely (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who's got an inkling of historical perspective will and do realize that we're at a pretty fucked up point in history and god help us if there's another 4 years of the Bush regime.
For real man, you are dead on: the real enemies of America are in the White House right now. Fuckin eh!
someone explain please (Score:4, Insightful)
"youre not allowed to talk about the traffic or weather"
"why not?"
"because..."
???*confused*
Monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Yellow Journalism on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Well seeing as how Clear Channel is the largest radio broadcaster and owns 1200 radio stations in the US, it is pretty safe to say they dominate the NAB, especially in issues related to radio. I am sure that is why Reuters inserted their name into the rpess release.
"Secondly, how is local radio a failed business model? "
Local radio may not be a failed bussiness model but it is very well documented that most clear channel's stations have been steadily losing audiences since being taken over by clear channel. Thus, clear channel is a failed bussiness model. And quite fittingly, their stock prices have been steadily decreasing ever since they obtained this large number of stations (around 2000).
The fact that satelite radio exists is further proof for the bad quality of local radio. Think about it -- people install additional devices in their cars and buy monthly subscriptions to get satelite radio, while they can get local radio for free. Well local radio must really suck.
Pot calling kettle black (Score:4, Insightful)
Before deregulation local radio stations were pretty much just that. Many were locally owned, had local programming staff and even those that were owned by outside interests functioned pretty much autonomosly.
In Minneapolis (and many other cities) Clear Channel has bought up most of the more popular stations and consolidated their operations. The different stations share sales staffs, engineering staffs, and administrative staff and in some cases even on-air personalities. Their programming decisions come down from the corporate level.
Not all of this is bad. There are improvments in effiency and reduced labor costs and other business related benefits. I have no problem with that.
What does bother me is that it makes it difficult for new artists to get airplay. When the programming decisions are handed down by such a select few people for the whole country, they only pick from a stable of artists that are already established or have the right "influence."
It is like the difference between going to Mc Donalds and going to a mom & pop locally owned cafe. You aren't gonna find any local specialties and while you can probably find something you like at McDonalds, you won't get anything really great either!
Re:Pot calling kettle black (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Clear Channel and their ilk have already largely nationalized their supposedly "local" content, their argument against satellite radio doing the same thing is completely without merit.
Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon now (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, it is not Clear Channel but National Association of Broadcasters that filed the complaint (contrary to what the original posting says) which Clear Channel is one of many members (as someone pointed out, they only got about 10% of the radio market).
Also, this request isn't that far out there. After all, local radio and TV stations have to pay fees and licenses to transmit locally, so why shouldn't satellite based radios have to-do the same if they want to have local content? DirecTV and Dish both provide local content, but they are very strict on the fact that you can only get your own local channels due to these rules. I don't see why satellite radio should be any different.
Now I wouldn't mind if the satellite services were allowed to have local content based on GPS, but I don't think its right to charge money of one group to transmit local content and not the other.
Re:Why focus on Clear Channel? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm absolutely sure it was done over Clear Channel's strident objections, too.
Get real: This kind of anti-competitive crap is almost always done through industry associations. It makes better PR and helps to legitimize it to people who don't know any better.
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit the nail right on the head. Broadcasters basically think at this point that they cannot safely air Howard Stern, Bubba The Love Sponge or any other similar program without fear of large FCC fines. However, right now those shows can find a safe haven on XM and Sirius with no FCC content restrictions at all. XM and Sirius might sensor their "family level" channels on their own, but Playboy Radio being a premium channel can do absolutely anything they want.
The broadcasters see this as a popular content type that they're about to lose access to about to be used against them. They want the same standards applied to the satellite broadcasters...
Re:Now it is all starting to make some sense ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clear Channel doesn't hold any political views at all that don't directly concern its business. However, a certain class of Clear Channel's employees are often hired because of their political views and ability to communicate them. Clear Channel employs and distributes Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel employs and distributes Art Bell. They're much more interested in how many people will listen than which side of the political debate such people are on.
So, what happened with those rallies is that they were being propped up by a conservitive talk show host and their staff, and Clear Channel didn't stop their employees from spending their time that way because holding a rally is an effective promotion for the radio station and show.
Trust me, if Air America Radio starts to get some rattings traction, there will be a rash of left-wing political commentators all over Clear Channel's airwaves, no matter who's holding the White House. Clear Channel's interest is in getting people to listen to blabbermouths, not in changing politcal opinions.
Shame on anyone who sold out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Insightful)
You can tune in to local TV free over the airwaves as well, yet somehow, cable and satellite television thrive. You'd be amazed how many people will pay for a bit (or a lot) of additional service and options.
ClearChannel Complains About XM, Sirius Radio (Score:0, Insightful)
Capitalists only think competition is "a good thing" when it competes with someone else.
I'm not an Anonymous Coward, but I play on on Slashdot
Just what business model is failing? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you think of it, XM and Sirius are the popup blockers of radio.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Killing Sirius (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore, killing off local content on the main competition to XM whilst holding on to the hundreds of stations around the country playing CC approved content.
(They hope) Sirius will die without the local content, and then CC will have control of all land based and satellite based radio! YEA!
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Insightful)