Pseudo Disobedience - Part 2

Last post we laid out the reasons (both purported and real) commercial radio broadcasters are trying to block the proposed merger of XM and SIRIUS satellite radio. Now let's get down to cases.

First up, an informational site -- xmsiriusmonopoly.org. If you just stumbled on the site, and didn't look to closely, you might get the impression that this is a grassroots protest site, but its not. The National Association of Broadcasters run it, and their logo's at the bottom of the page for all to see.

As you might expect, the news articles all have a particular slant. Some you can check, some you can't. The New York Times pieces, for example, are available by subscription only. As with any of these sites (even the pro-merger ones), it's always best not to take things at face value.

For example, one of the articles you can click through to is a USA Today op-ed piece by Jimmy Schaeffler, a recognized telecommunications expert. His bio says he's associated with the Carmel Group, whose principal clients are satellite TV providers. So does that matter?

Well, as it turns out, DirecTV offers XM programming as part of their service, and the DISH Network streams SIRIUS. So if the merger goes through, instead of these two satellite TV services playing XM and SIRIUS against each other for privilege of carrying their programming, they'll have to deal with a single provider. So the real concern isn't about a monopoly to the consumer, its about a monopoly to satellite TV providers.

Still, the site doesn't disguise its relationship to the NAB, so it's to be expected that the contents push their agenda.

But how about the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio? Everything on the site suggests that it's a grassroots movement by satellite radio subscribers upset about the merger. when I looked over the sign up page, though, I saw something out of place. It was a menu listing for HD Radio. With the exception of broadcasters who continually tout HD Radio, I have yet to run across anyone not professionally involved with broadcasting who's more than marginally aware of it, let alone considers it an important source for content. (And its not just me - here's how it stacks up in consumer awareness.)

The Corporate Crime Reporter did some serious digging, and published an interview with the founder of the movement, Chris Reale. In their report, they note

Reale works full time at Williams Mullen Strategies - the lobbying arm of the Williams Mullen law firm - whose communications practice is headed by Julian Shepard - a former assistant general counsel at NAB."

Reale won't say who is funding his "consumer group," but he says the NAB "supports" the group.

He refuses to identify the nature of NAB's support.

The purpose of this post isn't to vilify the NAB, but just to make a simple point. There are citizens pushing for change, and vested interests posing as citizens pushing for change. The beauty of the Internet is that it doesn't take a lot of effort to discover which is which.

- Ralph

Pseudo Disobedience - Part 1

We've had some good examples of grass roots movements using the Internet to heighten awareness and more effectively bring about change. But there are plenty of astroturf movements that are using the same strategy to further their cause.

Sometimes they're easy to spot, and sometimes not -- until you do a little digging. This post I'll give you some foundation, and next time use that to spot Internet initiatives that seem to come from the public, but are actually businesses furthering their own agenda in disguise.

We'll take the proposed XM/SIRIUS satellite radio merger. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) is throwing all their money and influence at their congresscritters to sink this merger.

The mantra is that it would create a monopoly, allow the XIRIUS (or whatever it will be called) to raise rates with impunity, and decrease the programming choices for consumers.

OK, imagine a world where McDonald's, KFC and Burger King lobbyed a town council to block the merger of two upscale restaurants because it would create a monopoly, allowing the combined restaurants to gouge the consumer, and the total number of entrees would decrease, limiting dining choice.

Seems odd, doesn't it? Why would fast food chains care what happens to these restaurants anyway? Chez Francois' patrons don't eat Big Macs. If killing the merger meant both restaurants went out of business, though, then it begins to make sense. Because then those patrons would have to eat at the fast food places if they wanted to dine out at all.

And that's what this is all about. XM and SIRIUS need to merge to stay viable. Commercial radio wants to block it so both will die, and they'll return to being the only game in town (well, except for all the other media choices, but they're not focused on those, so we won't either -- yet).

Take a spin around the AM and FM dial sometime. Do you hear even a fraction of the programming variety offered by either satellite radio company? Merging would mean the elimination of duplicate programming, but let's be realistic. The reason why people voluntarily pay for satellite radio when they can get commercial radio for free is the programming. XIRIUS knows that's their primary asset. Don't expect that to significantly change.

Would a combined service charge more? It would be good news for the NAB. If the rates go up, more people will leave -- which is what commercial broadcasters want anyway. And while XIRIUS might be a monopoly in the sense that it will be the only subscription-based satellite radio available, it's hardly an all-or-nothing choice for listeners.

There are many other media choices. In addition to commercial broadcast radio, there's broadcast public radio. There's also Internet radio (for the time being), podcasts, music from MP3 players and cell phones, and more.

I've never subscribed to either XM or SIRUS. If the merger goes through I probably still won't. But I'll still have plenty of listening options.

My house gets its electricty from Dominion Power. If I want electricity, I have one choice and one choice only -- and not having power isn't really an option. Which sounds more like a monopoly to you?

- Ralph

A Moment of Silence to Get Your Attention

If you listen to an Internet radio station and haven't been following the controversy surrounding the proposed rate hikes in royalties, you might be in for a surprise. There's a good chance you won't hear anything when you go to your favorite audio stream.

Many Internet radio stations are going silent today. The purpose is to demonstrate what the consequences of the new royalty rates would be. So today, no Pandora.com. No Live365. No Rhapsody, no MTV Online. No online streams from KCRW, KALW, or WAMU, and hundreds of others.

No one's arguing that artists should be paid a royalty for the music used. But when the rates go from a percentage of profits to a per-listener rate that in many cases exceeds the provider's total revenue several times over, something's got to go. And it either the rates, or the stations.

The Sound Exchange which came up with these rates wasn't interested in changing them; the Copyright Royalty Board which accepted their recommendation refused to listen to arguments on appeal. At this point only Congress can affect a change, through H.R. 2060 -- which is still in committee.

July 15 the new rates kick in. The silence this time will last 24 hours. Without action on your part, come July 15 the silence will be permanent.

- Ralph

Case of the Disappearing Discs

Long time readers know I couldn't let an article about WETA pass without comment. In Marc Fisher's blog at the WashingtonPost.com this past Sunday, he talked about the resurgence of classical music on the Washington airwaves, thanks to WETA's return to the format after the demise of WGMS (you can find my thoughts on the whole mess here, if you need to get up to speed).

I was heartened to see general manager's Dan DeVany's comment that he planned to "stay the course." But he's speaking for the management team that ditched three decades of classical programming to chase public radio news listeners in the first place.

Which leads me to my real point. The final paragraph of Fisher's blog entry reads:

[DeVany] says the station will move to a greater variety of pieces as it builds its CD library from 4,000 discs to more than 50,000 in the coming months.

WHAT!?!? A station in a major market that broadcast classical for 30 years only has 4,000 CDs? When I worked at Nimbus Records, I was responsible for sending releases to key stations, including WETA. WETA should have received at least 100 titles just from our little label alone. And when you add all the releases from Warner, Harmonia Mundi, Universal, Sony/BMG, EMI and all the other minor independent labels, I'm guessing the station's probably received over 500 CDs a year -- every year since the mid 1980's.

So of the 20,000 or more discs WETA should have received, where did they go? Did they throw them out when they went to all news?

And where's the WGMS library? That was supposed to go straight to WETA as part of the deal. Is that the 50,000 discs they're referring to? (It could be -- that would be quite a cataloging job).

Here's what prompted this reaction. I have about 2,000 classical CDs in my personal collection. I've been putting them to good use -- as my Wednesday morning audience on WTJU can [hopefully] attest. Still, the concept that the most important classical radio station in the Washington area has a library only double the size of mine, seems somehow odd -- and wrong.

- Ralph

Tracking the Ethereal

Sean Tubbs of the Charlottesville Podcasting Network left an excellent comment on our last post. In additions to his thoughtful observations and sharing his first-person experience in broadcasting, he asked a very important question:

So, what does happen to old radio programs?

As fans of nostalgia radio know, many of the radio dramas, comedies and variety shows broadcast from the 1930's through the 1950's were recorded onto vinyl, and are readily available today.

Many stations also did airchecks, and some of these from the 1960's and later have survived and are shared by collectors.

(An aircheck is a recording made of a station's broadcast for the purpose of monitoring the on-air talent. Usually the aircheck is reviewed by the program director and sometimes by the announcer as well. Some stations used "skimmers," which basically only recorded when the microphone was turned on, and paused when the mic was shut off. This "telescoped" a 4-hour airshift down to about 20 minutes of tape by skipping most of the music.)

The best source I've found for aircheck material is Reelradio.com. The site specializes in AM Top 40 radio, but within that focus contains an amazing variety of recorded radio segments from the 1950's up through the 1980's. Some of these are skimmed airchecks, which give you the flavor of the announcer's style, while others are complete recordings and include music and commercials.

Thanks to Reelradio, I've been able to listen to the first DJ of rock and roll, Alan Freed, and relive some memories with Tiger Bob Raleigh on WPGC.

For the Washington area, there's the excellent DCRTV historical site, DCRTV Plus. For a small fee, you can get access to a variety of information about old radio stations, programs and air talent, as well as some audio clips.

Some stations have their own fan sites, such as WPGC, and WJMA (the station I started at) also have some audio available.

And some air talent have made their own recordings available. In his comment, Sean mentions Ed Walker. Ed Walker and Willard Scott (long before the Today Show weather gig) were known as the Joy Boys and produced some of the greatest radio comedy ever heard (IMHO), rivaling Bob and Ray (also IMHO). Many of their skits are available through the Joy Boys website.

But this is just a fraction of what went out over the airwaves. Most of it is lost forever, and what remains reminds me very much of what's usually recovered at an archeological dig. Small shards of pottery and fragments of tools that give us but a hint of what the original objects were like to hold and use.

- Ralph

So what other sources are out there that I've missed? Leave a comment and share a link!