The Telecommunications Act of 1996 radically changed the rules regarding radio ownership. In fact, it discarded years of carefully crafted regulation that was ultimately fair: One license per service in any local signal area. It was extremely difficult for any single broadcaster to have unchalleged dominance, even if they owned the maximum of one AM, one FM, and one TV station. Even better, it recognized each radio station as a local or regional resource, and respected the important responsibilities of those licensees.

Eleven years later, we are told there's a slowly-growing realization that the consolidation enabled by the Act has resulted in fewer "minority" owners. I have no doubt that's true. However, I believe it is just as wrong to legislate mandated minority ownership. What we need to do is re-regulate the ownership of radio.

Everyone understands the economics of consolidation. A handful of radio stations can be operated as cheaply as one (and in many cases, they now are!) Did we believe we could allow such consolidation and not put people out of work? How many jobs simply disappeared when the competition was across the hall, instead of down the street? How many of these employees were someone other than a white guy?

And of course, when consolidation became possible, the prices for stations went up, up and away, because the big prize was to buy the best in every market and move them all into one building. Did some minorities sell their stations because they got an offer they couldn't refuse? Were some minorities unable to match the capital outlay of growing conglomerates?

I suggest that the greatest failure of radio ownership de-regulation is the toll taken on people - not just the listeners, who are supposed to be served in "the public interest, convenience and necessity" - but the people who might or could still be working in radio.
These people might be minorities.

Consider that if all the stations weren't in one building, a person might be more likely to walk into one and ask for work. A person running a small local store might be able to afford a modest radio advertising schedule. Since all the stations wouldn't be in one building, and prices would reflect actual value based on revenues, a person might be able to buy the station. Since their competitor would be across town and not across the hall, a person might invent unique, original and local programming that would challenge their competitors to hire more people and improve their programming, too.

Instead of mandating license assignment by race and gender, let's require those broadcasters that own more than one license in any service, in any local signal area, to divest them, at a fair-market price, over the next ten years. A company could own three stations (1 AM, 1 FM and 1 TV) in any MSA. And, how about tax-incentives to minority buyers, and to those who sell to minority owners?

With the radio stations operating from separate buildings, with different staffs and management, located all over town (maybe even in minority neighborhoods!) radio could start becoming a local service again. We could have tens of thousands of local media businesses, instead of a few dozen media conglomerates.

Which scenario produces the highest probability that all Americans will have access to, employment in, and ownership of commercial radio stations? The numbers alone tell us that logically, we need more PEOPLE in radio. Nothing does more to increase diversity, innovation and choice. Nothing in the 1996 Telecommunications Act has made this more likely, even if there is additional legislation requiring discrimination by race and/or gender.

Consolidation of radio station ownership in a local signal area was a terrible mistake, and it must be undone. The ONLY purpose of such de-regulation was to artifically inflate station prices and claim windfall revenues.

http://www.reelradio.com/editorial/index.html