
FCC eliminates rule requiring a local presence for AM/FM/TV broadcasters - mozumder
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-eliminates-main-studio-rule
======
losteverything
The Minot toxic spill and senator Dorgan's outrage is appropriate

" When a train derailment in the middle of the night released a frightening
cloud of anhydrous ammonia, Minot police sought to notify the citizenry of the
crisis. They called KCJB, the station designated as the local emergency
broadcaster, but no one was home; the station was being run by computer,
automatically passing along Clear Channel programming from another city.

Clear Channel argues that only a technical glitch prevented word from getting
through. But glitches aside, the six stations now have only one news employee
among them."

Radio is key in disasters. Why do this?

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2007/01/what_really_happened_in_minot_nd.html)

~~~
adfm
I'm kind of curious about this myself. With the recent wildfires in Northern
California, there was plenty of confusion on the ground as residents groped
for a solid news source. The local radio stations (KSRO, in particular) were
key communications infrastructure for citizens and first responders.

As much as we like to think we've got the technology thing figured out, your
smartphone becomes a useless brick when the cell towers start melting. Don't
take your infrastructure for granted.

One by one, with the exception of AT&T (salt water battery backups anyone?),
the wireless networks and cable TV went down. When you've got your bags packed
and you're ready to bug out, you tune in to the _local_ radio station because
the spotty overtaxed 4G and Satellite TV can deliver only so much relevant
information.

------
mikestew
So, in summary, your "local" radio station can now become a broadcasting node
for a centralized mass-market company, and the actual content can come from
anywhere. Put another way, it's like calling the New York Times your "local"
paper, when you live nowhere near New York City.

Granted, the FCC does have a point in stating that this could allow small
rural stations to stay on the air when they might otherwise go dark. But if
you're just going to give me an ad-filled, OTA version of SomaFM (only with
crappy, "one-size-fits-all" generic pop), maybe it's best to just let them go
dark as an artifact of an earlier time. Some day kids can go on field trips to
look at the equipment, which will be right next to the telegraph exhibit.

~~~
mankash666
I think you're only focusing on the drawbacks. PBS/NPR can benefit greatly
from this too - two sides to every coin

~~~
joezydeco
The vote was 3:2 on party lines with a Republican majority. Something tells me
they didn't do it to benefit NPR and PBS.

~~~
comex
That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t benefit them.

------
Chardok
Anyone who has been actively listening to the radio or watching local TV
broadcasts for the past 10-20 years can probably already attest to the bland
homogenization and conspicuous corporate take overs (I immediately think of
this video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA);](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA\);)
it seems like this is the next logical direction for them.

Personally I detest this and miss the flavor each city brought to its local
media, instead of the _same_ stations playing the same 30 songs repeatedly,
but with phone music streaming becoming so popular I cannot see a lot of
people being outraged by this.

------
freedomben
As a resident of Alaska, it is frustrating when there is huge and important
news happening locally that is difficult to find coverage for, but a snow
storm in New York (where the media mostly live and work) gets wall-to-wall
coverage even on "local" stations.

------
gumby
I consider Pai a malign and ignorant mouthpiece of Big Media but I have a hard
time seeing the big problem with this.

I mean, what are the alternatives? If the station can't afford to keep staff
around the clock then should they shut down the transmission at those times
like in the old days?

These days most TV and radio stations are simply remote retransmission sites
for Big Radio anyway, simulcasting a computer-selected assortment of anodyne
crap into every market where they have a franchisee. Whether there's some poor
sap at the reception desk or not doesn't change that.

Now if Pai really believed that FM radio is a public safety resource (cf his
fatuous posturing about FM radios and mobile phones) then this order could
have had a requirement that public safety officials be able to add warnings or
even recruit a volunteer to take over the station temporarily.

But failing that, broadcast radio and TV are basically zombie media primarily
aimed at a literally declining audience of old folks. There's nothing the FCC
can do about that (except pander, when there's still profit and/or votes for
the string-pullers).

~~~
freedomben
This is a good comment other than the first sentence which feels unnecessary
(I didn't downvote it for)

~~~
gumby
Thanks for your note.

> other than the first sentence which feels unnecessary

That comment is there for two reasons. First, in our hyper-polarized
environment its easy for someone to assume that if I support something this
FCC chair says I must be a hyper-partisan "alt-rightist" (and if I oppose I
must be a "libtard"). I wanted to point out that regardless of what I might
think about the current FCC's attitude to regulation and regulatory capture,
we shouldn't assume from a knee-jerk point of view that _everything_ suggested
is wrong.

Second, I do think that about Pai. My comment about him is relatively
sympathetic; I have worse to say about other members of the administration.

