Congress Tunes Into LPFM

We know we’ve talked a lot about Low Power FM (LPFM) stations lately — this is our second post this week — but that’s because there are so many exciting developments in the land of Low Power!

This morning, the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1147, aka the Local Community Radio Act of 2009. FMC arrived at the Hill bright and early to catch all the action.

Chairman Rick Boucher gave a quick overview of the legislation and the importance of LPFM stations: “H.R. 1147, the Local Community Radio Act, introduced by Representatives Doyle and Terry, would provide additional opportunities for low-power FM (LPFM) radio stations. . . LPFM stations, which are community-based nonprofits that operate at 100 watts or less and have a broadcast reach of only a few miles, play a unique role in our media.” Well said, Mr. Chairman. As we love to point out, LPFM stations provide important, community-based alternatives to the automated voice-tracking and homogenized playlists commonly found on the commercial stations. (We've got it all in a fact sheet somewhere. . .)

Members of the subcommittee heard testimony from three different witnesses. First, Peter Doyle of the FCC (not to be confused with Representative Mike Doyle) gave the lowdown on the supposed interference problems touted by powerful commercial lobby group the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). According to the FCC techies (and the MITRE Corp, an independent systems engineering and research org), any interference with megawatt stations is virtually non-existent. Next up, NAB board member Caroline Beasley gave her testimony opposing the bill. Finally, Cheryl Leanza of United Church of Christ gave a bold statement in support of Low Power Radio to close the hearing.

Beasley’s testimony served to highlight the fact that the NAB is only supportive of localism when it’s politically convenient. In addition to her NAB board role, Beasley is Executive Vice President and CFO of Beasley Broadcasting Group Inc., a mid-sized broadcasting company that's undoubtedly smaller than behemoth station groups like Clear Channel. It seems likely that the NAB picked Beasley to help convince the Subcommittee of its support of local-oriented radio programming. Yet this is exactly what LPFM stations deliver and what the NAB is trying to prevent by aggressively lobbying against LPFM stations in more American towns and cities.

This isn’t the first time corporate radio has sent mixed signals regarding localism. In April, we told you about Clear Channel’s contradicting press releases on localism and, recently, Billboard featured an article about how Clear Channel’s “Premium Choice” initiative emphasizes prerecorded programming over local programming.

The Subcommittee, by and large, did not take the NAB’s bait. Several representatives fired questions at Beasley, some of which she was unable to answer. When Rep. Cliff Stearns asked, “why does the NAB dispute the FCC report [showing that LPFM stations cause no significant interference problems]?”, all Beasley had to say was, “We do. We are on record as disputing the report.” Talk about evasive maneuvers.

Leanza demonstrated the important role LPFM stations play in local communities, while Doyle confirmed that they pose no interference threat to full-power stations. Both of their testimonies were packed with data and examples of the unmet demand for community radio and the immense programming possibilities that would be created by lifting the unnecessary restrictions on LPFM radio. “As I have worked on this issue over the years,” said Leanza, “one of my favorite moments is after I ask someone the question, ‘what would a radio station sound like if you and your community ran it?’ All of a sudden a person’s eyes light up as they start to imagine what they could do. It is a wonderful experience to see the wheels start turning in people’s heads. “

You can read the full testimonies here.

Yesterday, we told you about our brand-spanking-new “I Support Community Radio” campaign, which features established and emerging musicians talking about how local radio has positively impacted their lives — both as artists and listeners. Head here to check out video testimonials from such artists as the Indigo Girls, Saul Williams, David Harrington of Kronos Quartet, Jon Langford of The Mekons and Waco Brothers, Vijay Iyer, Franz Nicolay of The Hold Steady and more. And in their own words, no less!

Now that the hearing is over, Congress will be deciding whether or not to enact the Local Community Radio Act of 2009. Musicians: one way to have your voice heard is to create your own video about what good local radio means to you. E-mail casey@futureofmusic.org to learn how to submit a clip. Oh, and Low Power to the People!

Radio Daze

They say you better listen to the voice of reason / But they don't give you any choice 'cause they think that it's treason. . .

-Elvis Costello, "Radio, Radio"

In the course of doing some internal research here at Future of Music Coalition, we rediscovered a fantastic article by John Nova Lomax, which ran in Houston Press back in January. The piece is all about how the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 resulted in the appalling homogenization of the commercial airwaves.

In the story, Lomax lays bare the tactics through which the National Association of Broadcasters claims diversity on the dial. FMC Executive Director Jenny Toomey is quoted heavily:

I called Jenny Toomey, director of the FMC (and an excellent musician), to see if she could answer the NAB's claim. Turns out she can -- most of those "new formats" they tout are just fresh applications of lipstick on the same old pigs. "This is something we identified a long time ago -- all of the data that was used to try to show that consolidation had led to more diversity was simply them thinking up new format names. It's very easy to thin-slice the exact same pie of songs under different names. We all know that 'active rock' might have very similar songs to 'classic rock.’"

The article is downright pissy in regards to the wasteland that is corporate radio. It also happens to be right on.

In related news, the NAB continues to oppose the public performance royalty for sound recordings, calling it the “performance tax”. In response, the MusicFIRST Coalition sent the NAB a dictionary and told them to look up the definition of tax. Clearly it’s not a tax, but the NAB has employed the word as a way to sully this debate. Calling it a tax also give members of Congress some fake comfort in voting for something that would retain the NAB’s exemption from paying a performance royalty that is currently paid by all of the NAB’s competition -- webcasters, satellite radio, cable TV and non-interactive music subscription services. Why is the NAB, the most established of all these mediums, still getting music for free, when all the other radio-like services compensate musicians, songwriters, publishers and labels?

Remember, the terrestrial public performance right (which already exists in 75 other countries) ensures that performers and also get paid a small royalty when their song is played on the radio.

This is tremendously important for jazz, classical and country artists who often perform works by other composers. The establishment of a public performance right in this country would mean that when you hear John Coltrane's unmistakable rendition of “My Favorite Things,” not only would songwriters Rodgers & Hammerstein receive a royalty, but also Coltrane -- or at least their respective estates. This seems pretty fair to us.

Yet the NAB routinely cries poor in this debate. Surely they can afford to pay the artists, even considering radio's ever-diminishing revenues. Maybe the NAB should stop complaining about competition from internet and satellite radio and focus more on diversity? Terrestrial radio is killing their golden goose by not focusing on the medium's built-in localism. Satellite radio is mandated not to do community-oriented broadcasting, and the internet is simply too big. But your old-fashioned FM stations have an incredible opportunity to offer diverse programming. Why don't they? Because greedy media monopolies emboldened by consolidation are only interested in aggregating the broadest possible demographics to increase ad revenue.

By the time they realize their folly, it'll be too late. Radio — once a great public vehicle for information and entertainment — will have one the way of the dodo.

For more info, check out FMC's 2006 Radio Summary. We've linked to it a lot over the last couple of weeks, but it's just that good.