Feingold Bill Reactions (June 29, 2002)

Feingold Bill Would Redefine Local Ownership, LMAs

Under the senator's proposed legislation, media companies will be treated as having "attributable interest" in stations if they hold more than one-third of the station's stock or other assets, an option to purchase the station, or if the two share program staff. The bill - in addition to limiting local marketing agreements to one year - would also prohibit LMAs if they would result in one of the licensee's having more than 35% share of audience or the radio advertising revenue in the market. "We need to repair the damage that has been done through the unprecedented consolidation in [the radio and concert] industries," Feingold said at a news conference yesterday. "This has some real negative impacts for our culture and our democracy."

From D.T.: What it means...before the HBC merger with Univision to create Univision Radio earlier this month, Clear Channel owned about 30 percent in non-voting interest in HBC, which was the former Heftel. With the Univision merger, Clear Channel's share of the new combined Univision Radio will be about seven percent. Under the bill, Clear Channel would have had to reduce their share if they owned more than 33 1/3 percent of HBC's assets or stock.

Also: In San Diego, Clear Channel'sn LMA agreement with KSDO, owned by Chase Radio Partners, would be limited for one year. After the year ends, either Chase would run the station itself since CC could no longer run the station, or sell the station to another party. Also, since Clear Channel has more than 35 percent of the audience or the radio advertising revenue in this market collectively (the bill does not include whether the LMAs with the Mexican-owned radio stations are affected by the legislation), then under the bill, they would no longer be able to make LMA agreements with any radio station in the San Diego market; it remains unclear, by the design of the bill, if Clear Channel's LMA with the five Mexican-owned radio stations count towards the advertising revenue share. Lets' take a look (the Los Angeles originating stations, KFI and KNX, which have a major prescence here, are not included in the shares since they do not take San Diego advertising for the very most part). The stations are restricted to English-language stations. Minor-powered North County stations are also excluded since most people cannot receive them with small radios in the metro San Diego area (sorry KPRI and KFSD).

 7/25 Clear Channel O&O's: KOGO, KPOP, KHTS, KMYI, KOCL, KGB, KIOZ
 1/25 Clear Channel LMA-American: KSDO
 5/25 Clear Channel LMA-Mexican: XTRA-AM, XHITZ, XETRA-FM, XHRM, XHCR
12/25 All Others: KFMB-AM, KECR, KCEO, KCBQ, KPRZ, KSON-AM, KBZT, KYXY, KSON-FM, KIFM, KFMB-FM, KPLN

Either way, for the English ad share, CC's LMA with KSDO would be over the limit, and their seven-run stations would hit the limit of 35 percent exactly!

from insideradio.com

Feingold Bill would reform radio. Here's how it would effectively limit the number of radio stations owned by conglomerates to present numbers not allowing for further relaxation of ownership limits, end the practice of warehousing stations where groups use friendly owners to hold licenses while they operate and leverage the stations for further profit and halt the current practice of independent record company money that is paid to group owners.

Ownership limits would be frozen at present levels. New restrictions on national ownership concentration, but even worse for big owners and their investors, one part of this Bill permanently limits radio's growth potential.

Warehousing of stations would end. No more front companies, no more loose interpretation of what an LMA or JSA is. It all would count. There is a major repercussion to markets where warehousing or LMA abuse now exists.

Independent record "payola" to group owners would be banned. No more cute defenses of this practice. The record labels would get their revenge and end middleman payments through indies to groups paving the way to regain control of record promotion.

Crossownership of concert promotion would be outlawed Can't leverage concert venues with radio stations for undue advantage - another win for the record industry and a major loss for Clear Channel, if passed.

Live 365 To Add Royalty Fees To Personal Broadcasts

Live365.com, which specializes in personal radio broadcasting from private parties, will be adding a fee to all broadcasts beginning later this summer.

Says live365.com from their website:

"We are excited by the opportunity to support artists - particularly those on smaller labels - who don't have access to traditional AM/FM channels.

"To cover a portion of these payments, a Royalty Administration Fee of US $5.00 will be applied to all Live365 broadcasts starting on August 1, 2002. This will be a recurring monthly fee.

"If you are currently being billed for Live365 services, this fee will be added to your monthly statement unless you decide to cancel.

"If you are a Founding Broadcaster, not paying for services, you will need to enter payment information to keep your broadcast on the air. You will need to log in and go to the Order Form. (Note: This will be updated on July 1 to reflect the new Royalty Administration Fee)

"All broadcasters will have a grace period of 30 days to decide what to do with your broadcast. If you choose not to pay the royalty, your broadcast will become unavailable on or around August 2nd."

The Live365 royalty news report also states that the $5.00 fee applies to each station, covers the retroactive payment of the performance royalties, as well as retroactive royalties dating back from July 1999 when live365.com began their service.

"The flat rate was kept intentionally low in order to be as affordable to as many broadcasters as possible," says a live365 FAQ answer.

There are two kinds of royalties: Songwriters royalties (a.k.a. BMI, ASCAP and SESAC) and Performance royalties. Live365 is responsible for both in the case of Personal Broadcasters. The live 365 page explains more on the news.

http://www.live365.com/info/royaltyfaq.html

Save the Pledge of Allegiance

Dear Fellow American,

We need you to forward this e-mail to EVERYONE YOU KNOW right away!

As you've surely heard by now, a radical left-wing federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional... because it includes the words, "under God"!

The San Francisco court ruled that the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing religion.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS... but we CAN do something about it!

Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) has introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Amendment (H.J. RES. 81), to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow expressions of religious freedom on public property... including the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, if this amendment had already been in place, that appeals court wouldn't have even had the opportunity to make such a decision, one that President Bush immediately called "ridiculous". CLICK BELOW NOW to send a message to your Congressmen, urging them to support H.J. RES. 81:

http://www.conservativealerts.com/062702.htm

Istook has stated that that this new ruling is just another reason Congress should approve his amendment, because it protects the Pledge of Allegiance as well as protecting voluntary student prayer.

"I'm appalled, but not surprised," said Istook. "The First Amendment was designed to protect religious freedom, but wayward judges like these misuse it to attack religion. Bit-by-bit, the ACLU and its sympathizers are winning their 36-year fight against America's religious freedoms and religious heritage. Only a constitutional amendment, such as I've proposed, will stop them."

"Sure, some people are intolerant," Istook noted; "they object to hearing God mentioned at a school or public place, but that doesn't give them the right to censor the rest of us. This ruling shows just how out-of-touch too many judges are, and how they've turned common-sense upside-down. Don't mandate prayer or religious messages, but for heaven's sake don't ban them either!"

Rep. Istook's proposed amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives back in January... but it hasn't even been introduced in the Senate yet! NOW is the time to get the House AND the Senate to MOVE on this bill, and YOU can get them moving!

ConservativeAlerts.com has set up a website where you can send a pre-written message (that you can modify) IMMEDIATELY to your Congressmen, urging them to support H.J. RES. 81, the First Amendment Restoration Act. You can send an e-mail for FREE, print out your letter and fax or mail it in, or even send an inexpensive "Extra Impact" HAND DELIVERY letter -- CLICK BELOW NOW:

http://www.conservativealerts.com/062702.htm

NOTE: Be sure to forward this e-mail to EVERYONE YOU KNOW right away -- this proposed amendment still hasn't been introduced in the Senate yet, so we need to act FAST, with LOTS of people demanding action against this radical leftist court ruling NOW. Thank you!