Radio & Records reports that KXOL in Los Angeles wanted to changed it's
Spanish AC to a more pop presentation. But Emmis-- who owns their tower--
put in the lease contract they can veto programming they feel will hurt
their stations-- in this case Power 106.

Doesn't the FCC frown on one station controlling the programming of another.
Or did that go by the wayside with dereg?

fredtv wrote:
Radio & Records reports that KXOL in Los Angeles wanted to changed it's
Spanish AC to a more pop presentation. But Emmis-- who owns their tower--
put in the lease contract they can veto programming they feel will hurt
their stations-- in this case Power 106.

Doesn't the FCC frown on one station controlling the programming of another.
Or did that go by the wayside with dereg?

I've not read the R&R story, but judging from "...who owns their
tower..." it doesn't look to me like Emmis actually controls KXOL's
programming. KXOL is free to go ahead with the "more pop presentation",
as long as they find somewhere else to put their antenna.

47CFR73.239 does prohibit a FM licensee from using its control over a
transmission site to "...unduly restrict competition among FM broadcast
stations.". As I understand it, that would, for example, prohibit Clear
Channel from obtaining an exclusive lease over the top of the Sears
Tower which would prevent Infinity stations from locating there.

However, the KXOL site doesn't seem to be "peculiarly suitable" for an
FM transmitter. Certainly they would have the option of moving
elsewhere if they're not willing to abide by Emmis' dictates.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Can KXOL move to another site given the crowded nature of the
allotments in Southern California?

There are so many stations nearby, plus Mexican allotments, that I'm
wondering if there is simply no way to move away from the old Power 106
site.

Also, since this is what company telling another what they can do with
what they own, and given the type of business being run here,
commercial radio, can charges under other business laws and antitrust
laws be brought against the party that telling the other what they can
and cannot do with their station be considered illegal under other US
law, forget the FCC regulations?

From what I got from the R&R report, it sounds like KXOL wanted to flip
to Hurban. If the complaining party that told KXOL they could not flip
to Hurban. does it with one of their stations, then there could be a
real serious legal case coming down the line.

The rationale for the veto was it would cut into Power 106's listener
base. Hurban draws listeners from Spanish formats and from
CHR/Rhythmics. Typical listener base is younger, 2nd/3rd generation
Hispanics in the US already and who also are typically bilingual as a
result.

I don't wish it on Emmis, CC, or anyone else involved for that matter.

On 17 May 2005 18:55:26 GMT, "fredtv" wrote:

Radio & Records reports that KXOL in Los Angeles wanted to changed it's
Spanish AC to a more pop presentation. But Emmis-- who owns their tower--
put in the lease contract they can veto programming they feel will hurt
their stations-- in this case Power 106.

Doesn't the FCC frown on one station controlling the programming of another.
Or did that go by the wayside with dereg?

Actually, the FCC is more likely to penalize KXOL for having entered
into an agreement that gave program control to someone other than the
licensee.

Emmis will probably argue that they're not forcing KXOL to remain on
their tower and are free to move and change format. If there were no
options (costs of moving aside) there might be some civil legal
remedy.

It's pretty dumb for a station to agree to anything that prevents them
from being competitive in a market.

In the 70s the FCC issued an order that stations could not enter into
a contract (in this case Shulke Radio Productions) that required the
station to take orders from the syndicator.

Rich

On 19 May 2005 03:13:02 GMT, "James W Anderson"
wrote:

Also, since this is what company telling another what they can do with
what they own, and given the type of business being run here,
commercial radio, can charges under other business laws and antitrust
laws be brought against the party that telling the other what they can
and cannot do with their station be considered illegal under other US
law, forget the FCC regulations?

I would bet there would be fewer civil laws that would apply than FCC
regulations. KXOL knew what they were signing when they agreed to the
contract terms. Supposing KXOL's lease was up and another company
needed DTV antenna space. Why would this be any different than a
landlord leasing space to another tenant. What if Emmis decided to
triple the rent at the end of the lease? Would they be required to
keep SBS as a tenant even if they refused the new terms?

Rich

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
fredtv wrote:
Radio & Records reports that KXOL in Los Angeles wanted to changed it's
Spanish AC to a more pop presentation. But Emmis-- who owns their
tower--
put in the lease contract they can veto programming they feel will hurt
their stations-- in this case Power 106.

Doesn't the FCC frown on one station controlling the programming of
another.
Or did that go by the wayside with dereg?

I've not read the R&R story, but judging from "...who owns their
tower..." it doesn't look to me like Emmis actually controls KXOL's
programming. KXOL is free to go ahead with the "more pop presentation",
as long as they find somewhere else to put their antenna.

47CFR73.239 does prohibit a FM licensee from using its control over a
transmission site to "...unduly restrict competition among FM broadcast
stations.". As I understand it, that would, for example, prohibit Clear
Channel from obtaining an exclusive lease over the top of the Sears
Tower which would prevent Infinity stations from locating there.

However, the KXOL site doesn't seem to be "peculiarly suitable" for an
FM transmitter. Certainly they would have the option of moving
elsewhere if they're not willing to abide by Emmis' dictates.

There are very few "other places." KXOL can not go up Mt. Wilson, nor can
it go south or East. It is pretty locked in, and Flint Peak, where it
currently is, is a great site.

They're not telling KXOL what to program. This is strictly business, and has
nothing to do with federal law. It is VERY much like restrictive covenants
and homowners associatins. KXOL signed the lease in the first place. Now
they don't like it. Too bad. Shouldn't have agreed to it in the first place.

-George Csahanin
Awstin, TX

(Hi Doug!)

Also, since this is what company telling another what they can do with
what they own, and given the type of business being run here,
commercial radio, can charges under other business laws and antitrust
laws be brought against the party that telling the other what they can
and cannot do with their station be considered illegal under other US
law, forget the FCC regulations?

There's breaking news on this story, there may already be other posts
in the moderation queue due to it.

El Sol is now 'Latino 96-3' as of midnight. Yes, it's just about as
'hurban' as one of these can get, with a bilingual format. Full
details on the radioandrecords.com website.