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.
Howard Stern (Score:3, Interesting)
FM is Going the way of AM (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Other major XM shareholders include radio giant Clear Channel Communications, Inc."
In the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I can't see how the competition from them can be a bad thing for anyone but ClearChannel. Plus, if XM is not regulated by the FCC (I don't know this for sure, can anyone verify), we can get around all the censorship BS going on right now with our lovely FCC....
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Now it is all starting to make some sense ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people wondered why Clear Channel was so quick to dump the Stern show in six markets without putting up any kind of a fight.
While at first they presented themselves as being truly ashamed of the "Indecency" over their airwaves, it seems now that they were supporting the FCC in a very public arena so they could work themselves into a position where they can influence FCC policies. It probably doesn't hurt that they are a huge corporate donor to the Bush campaign.
On a recent Stern show episode, Howard suggested holding concerts in major Clear Channel markets to combat their growing power. With this latest news we have all the more reason not to support them and their anti-competitive policies.
For more information go here. [howardstern.com]
fair market (Score:1, Interesting)
Corporations and New Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
I get tired of corporations complaining about new technology. Clearly XM and Sirius are both new technologies and are the wave of the future. Remember when t.v. cable was new and all these same arguements were presented? For ClearChannel to be competitive over the long haul, it needs to get off its rear and create a satelite network of its own or get its shows carried on the various satelite radio providers.
Passing legislation such as this is stupid to put it bluntly. It will not change anything. If passed, in 10 years, we will be back to hearing the same arguments and eventually, the satelite providers will be providing whatever they choose anyway with or without ClearChannel's participation -- just as cable carries your local t.v. stations. In fact, because of cable the television stations do not spend lots of money putting in new translator stations to obtain expanded signal coverage and instead rely on the satelite or cable providers to carry their local broadcasts.
Well clearchannel OWNS XM (Score:1, Interesting)
Clearchannel owns a big chunk (30%?) of XM, and then complains about XM and Sirius.
I guess its all coincidence.
Re:And to think... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree Ashcroft is a bit crazy with the censorship but one big difference is that Ashcroft can be asked to resign or be voted out of office (hopefully for someone less restrictive). Monopolies with deep pockets will likely be around for a long time
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who have poor opinions of Microsoft's business practices, ClearChannel's doings are roughly similar, except they want to control not just what software you run, but also the computer on which you use said software, where said computer can be used and what the software will stop you from doing if it doesn't think what you're doing with it is decent.
a little extra info. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Interesting)
All of XM's music stations have no commercials. While the 'talk' stations do. It's kinda funny the commercials mainly on the XM Talk channels are 'spam' like such as life insurance, weight loss, and tax free living.
clearchannel adverts misleading (Score:2, Interesting)
This disgusts me (Score:4, Interesting)
This type of blind support of the special interest is What Is Wrong With The System (TM). I have been an XM subscriber for about four months. I signed up just before the local stations had ever been announced, but I can tell you, had I know they were offered, I would have signed up even faster. Last week I drove back down to Florida from Maryland down I-95, and I used their Baltimore, D.C. and Tampa channels to anticipate upcoming weather and traffic conditions. If you're not from the local area, you have no idea what AM / FM stations broadcast what type of content, and even then you have to shit through three to five minutes of mindless advertising (ever notice that the majority of ClearChannel ads hawk the same kind of stuff sold in spam?) before there's even a chance of lucking into a traffic or weather broadcast. The XM local traffic and weather stations are extremely helpful and an absolute blessing to frequent travelers.
I love XM because it puts choice of content back in the hands of the user. If I want to hear talk radio, I've got 20+ channels any time I want them, right, left or "neutral." If I want to hear just about ANY type of music, from jazz to death metal, it's always on and commercial free, and the quality is way higher than FM.
Fuck ClearChannel and their shitty ad-supported big media content. I hope they get run out of business, but no doubt their store-bought suckling government officials will shield them from such a fate and punish the sat radio providers accordingly. :(
Re:No, they only own less than 10% (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/Subscribers/r
My point is that people keep labelling CC as the one bad mojo when in actuality stuff like this posted story talk about NAB -- the national association of broadcasters -- NOT just CC. It's about keeping an eye on the ball.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't they practically in a monopoly situation and trying to keep it that way?"
Radio ITSELF is a failing business. Arbitron ratings show that people are listening to it less and less, and that the decline has accelerated since the consolidation after the 1996 telecoms act.
What CC fears is competition, of course, so they are trying to use the FCC to prevent one.
I wonder what they think of internet radio, a competitor that is growing faster than satellite...
I, myself run an internet station, hosted at Live 365, and I do live/local shows in the evening on it. http://cat92fm.com I try to actually appeal to a LOCAL audience with it. Though it's more of a hobby than a serious effort, I do have some listeners, and most of them are local, and they listen during the day because the music I play isn't played by the local CC cluster (they own 9 stations in our small merket)
I think CC wants to impose something like what is done to cable TV providers: Federally mandated monopoly. With cable or satellite, you are legally stuck with your local stations, you can't choose a different one, and it's illegal for the provider to sell them to you.
Clearchannel is just a shill for Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Competition is good for radio.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This might get modded as off topic, but I'm gonna do it anyways. People need to understand what a bunch of bastards Clear Channel and the NAB are and some semi related background info on their past behavior might be useful.
The real travesty in radio is that the only real ownership liberalization in many years was stifled at the request of the NAB and Clear Channel - Low Power FM stations which can be licensed and brought on line at very low cost compared to a "regular" station. This would have allowed normal folk with little capital to began legally broadcasting with decent range and signal - somethingthe NAB and Queer Channel didnt want.
Becuase of the NAB and Queer Channel the 1000 watt provision of the LPFM proposal was yanked due to what turned out to be a bogus phony "interference" concern that was later DISPROVEN by the the FCC's own hired examiners. The 1000 watt proposal was killed becuase in many cases it would have allowed station ranges to be competitive with their CC corporate owned stations.
The LPFM proposal if it had been left intact and not gutted by Queer Channel and the NAB lobbyists would have done more to revolutionize radio than satellite radio - becuase there would have been thousands of new voices on the air in every city and town. You bet yer ass they dont want competition from anyone, and most of all form ordinary citizens, to whom the PUBLIC airwaves are SUPPOSED to belong. Of course they are going to whine to the FCC - it's gotten the desired result before for them....
So of course now the gutted remnants of the LPFM ( cumbersome application process, limited licenses to be issued, only 10 and 100 watt power limits, too low to have any range ) are not having much effect. Geee, wonder why?
Lets hope the satellite companies fight Clear Channel with everything they have. If this rant was too off topic, sorry, but I gotta get my ya-ya's out sometimes, boss. The way they sliced and diced LPFM really pissed me off royal. Can ya tell? :D
The Sig is the point of his post (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the Sig was the whole point of his post.
(18 words in the Sig, only 13 in the post, the Sig WAS the message he's pushing).
He made a short comment simply repeating the stories angle, followed by a misleading political statement as a sig.
Do you think he got 5 points for restating the competition angle already mentioned in the original story? Probably not, Bush supporters mod him up to push the sig message.
From the story:
"Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio. "
From his comment:
"XM and Sirius ARE good for competition, that's why ClearChannel doesn't like them"
Not insightful.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pretty sad (Score:4, Interesting)
The worst I've heard on Sirius music streams are the DJs talking about what else there is to listen to on other streams, including then the occasional joke about other streams ("This is the hard rock stream! If you want pussy rock, go over to stream 9!"). In general there's nobody there telling me what I like or what I should be listening to, which is all broadcast radio does these days.
When next you listen to an FM station keep track of how many times they tell you that you're listening to the songs you love (and "none of the songs you don't") or how often they play recordings of other people talking about how great the station is.
(Hell, I still don't see the point in "HD radio." Why pay for better-sounding car commercials?)
Personally, I'm happier with the satellite radio philosophy where the paying subscriber is the ultimate arbiter of what they want or do not want to hear. Not the advertisers, not the government, and usually not even the record companies (Sirius is making it much easier for me to find CDs published by non-RIAA members).
Out of curiousity, is there anybody out there who had been a customer of either XM or Sirus and actually left? Like the commercials put out by the FM/AM broadcasters suggest?
ClearChannel opposes news reports! (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of whining to the government about their perceived competition, why don't they start a competing satellite service? They might be forced to learn a thing or two about what the listeners want instead of pushing the same tired station "formats".
Re:FM is Going the way of AM (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the "local traffic and weather" channels on XM now are actually national channels. That is to say, you can hear a Boston traffic report in Los Angeles perfectly clear. Not sure why anybody would want to, but it's there if you want it. All of the land-based repeaters are relaying all of the channels, even the ones intended for far-away cities. Therefore, XM is complying with the letter of the agreement just fine.
However, the NAB is trying to say that these "local" services violate the rules just to make life harder for XM.
What *are* you smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know a single person who listens to XM radio. I listen to FM (NPR).
I seriously, seriously doubt that any satellite radio will make serious inroads into ordinary radio listeners, FM or AM, while it costs money. You don't need to pay a cent to listen to FM radio (except the tiny cost of the radio itself). That's a pretty big advantage over XM.
Also, listening to NPR stations, I don't get commercials (at least, I certainly wouldn't call the regular announcers calmly reading the sponsors' slogans commercials). I'm lucky enough to get 2 NPR stations here: 1 that has news & talk-show-type-stuff all day (Diane Rehm, Talk of the Nation, Day to Day, etc), and one that plays classical music all day. That's all I would ever want from a radio station.
No satellite radio provider will ever get my business so long as WCNY and WRVO are on the air.
Dan Aris
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Given over to Christian networks? That's interesting. Why would CC hand over conquered stations to Christian networks? Can you site a news article or something on this? I'd love to read it.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this report [futureofmusic.org] (partly done with the help of Lawrence Lessig), ClearChannel owns 1244 stations and owns 27% of the listenership. They've achieved this largely by playing to the safe music picks in CHR (Contemporary Hit Radio) and other formats, with a focus on crossover music (songs that fit in more than one genre) so they can play the same song on all the different stations they own in the same market.
Or, to put it a different way, ClearChannel is the "McDonalds" of radio. They find safe bland songs within each genre (mostly about sexual attraction), and serve it up constantly, heavily laden with ads. About a quarter of Americans love this format -- just like some people love McDonalds. And they have parlayed that profitability into such a dominant position in radio that they can use their market power to drive even better deals for themselves from the RIAA and musicians.
New songs? Forget it. Unless you have already climbed the dial elsewhere or have big money backing you.
Problem with XM and the like (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And to think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not they are competitors from the FCC's point of view is a resonable question. FM radio is liscensed in the 88 to 108 Mhz range (so that's what those numbers on the dial stand for, I seriously never knew). Sattelite radio is licensed in the 2.48 to 2.8 Ghz range. (* [jneuhaus.com])
Sure, from the users point of view they both are just "radio", but Clear Channel is running its radio in the cheap seats under a government sponsered and enforced monopoly. To unregulate Clear Channel just because new technology exists is like saying that we should end highway regulations because airplanes exist.
Here's another take on it. Cell phones are in the 800 Mhz range. That's between FM and Sattelite radio. Do you want the FCC to try and enforce restrictions on cell phone communication just because Clear Channel fears a competitor 1.6 GHz higher up the spectrum. Imagine the consequences, "I'm sorry Mr. Stern, you have been banned from the use of cellular communication." How would he order hookers from his car. He'd have to stop and use a pay phone.
Okay, so that is a little off topic, and I realize that your point is that there should be absolutly no regulation. I think, however, the regualation is necessary for a public domain resource (like radio spectrum) but that regulation should take local realities into account. From that point of view, Clear Channel is just turning to the government to try and squelch a competitor.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:2, Interesting)
add to that the fact that its mellow enough to be grocery-store muzak (the original releases, mind you), and that was it for me.
steely dan was & is the ultimate in bland music that can fit any "format" somebody decides to proscribe, and i gave up on non-talk radio within a month of making that discovery, 12 years ago.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:1, Interesting)