From a part 15 hobbyists perspective it's something we prefer to ignore, bu I hate to admit Jason Davenports perspective makes a lot of sense:
Highlights:
Jason Davenport: Radio's fear of the future – and why the FCC needs an overhaul
"From the golden days of AM radio to today’s streaming boom, one thing remains constant in radio: its fear of change... ...viewed every new technological leap as a threat. Satellite radio? “It’ll kill local stations!” Podcasts? “They’re unregulated and unfair!” Internet radio? “It’s not real broadcasting!” Instead of adapting, much of the industry has clung to outdated business models, counting on federal regulators to shield them from innovation.....
Protectionism Over Progress
When satellite radio launched in the early 2000s, traditional broadcasters hit the panic button. They lobbied the FCC to block companies like XM and Sirius from airing local content, claiming it would harm “community-focused” stations. That wasn’t about protecting listeners – it was about protecting turf....
...passionate creators are launching podcasts, livestreams, and curated channels serving audiences that traditional radio ignores... ...These innovators receive no regulatory recognition, no public broadcasting support, and no fair policy framework. It’s like building a smart city – but forcing everyone to use rotary phones...
The Royalty Double Standard
Here’s one of the biggest hypocrisies in American radio – and it hits Alabama artists especially hard.
Terrestrial FM/AM stations are exempt from paying performance royalties for the sound recordings they air.. ...Internet broadcasters pay full freight. Terrestrial radio pays half. And yet, it’s the smaller, independent digital outlets that shoulder the financial burden – while billion-dollar terrestrial groups skate free.
It’s Time for FCC Reform
....Radio doesn’t have to die – but it does have to evolve. The next generation isn’t waiting for a signal to come in clear. They’re streaming, downloading and curating from their phones.
If the FCC and traditional broadcasters won’t catch up, someone else will simply build a better system around them.
Final Thoughts
...Let’s create a system that reflects today’s technology and tomorrow’s potential.
The future of radio isn’t on the dial. It’s online, on-demand, and in the hands of the people..."
"
You are right about ignoring this as it is our hobby. The author's opinion is just that, and it can stay that way.
Yeah, I have to disagree with the author of the original piece.
Not all new technologies are good. You can make an argument that cell phones have brought many benefits, but you can also make an argument that the costs outweigh those benefits.
Similarly, technology isn't going to help radio if it doesn't provide what potential listeners want. And if it does, then it will find listeners, regardless of the technology.
Radio certainly isn't the dominant force it was when it was the only game in town. There are lots of other choices. And I would argue that while technology is perhaps enabling some of these choices, people don't listen specifically because of the technology. They listen because they want to hear whatever 'it' is. A podcast that entertains. An internet stream that plays niche type music. Or a favorite sports talk show on AM.
My thoughts are that radio needs to downsize and cater to communities, not huge geographic areas. It needs to focus on the needs of those communities, and what they want to hear, whether it be classic country and western or christian rock. And it needs to be convenient and easy to listen to, which still, today, means analog radio. FM and to a smaller extent, AM, perhaps supported by an internet stream.
I believe that the days of the big media conglomerates are dwindling, and ownership of these radio stations will pass on to smaller mom and pop companies, who are doing it for the love, while making a bit of money (but not being overly obsessed with making lots of it).
Gee, sort of sounds like souped-up Part 15 stations, operating under some form of minimal regulatory umbrella.
And as for copyright. Artists want exposure for their music, and yet the companies that supposedly represent their interests make it more and more difficult for radio stations to afford to play it. Yes, artists should be compensated in some form, but who's to say that it should be direct dollars - isn't that exposure a form of compensation? Of course, the people that should be representing their interests have other, competing interests - themselves. It's these companies that make the lions share of any copyright fees.
.
technology isn't going to help radio if it doesn't provide what potential listeners want. .... And I would argue that while technology is perhaps enabling some of these choices, people don't listen specifically because of the technology. They listen because they want to hear whatever 'it' is. A podcast that entertains. An internet stream that plays niche type music. Or a favorite sports talk show on AM.My thoughts are that radio needs to downsize and cater to communities, not huge geographic areas. ...I believe that the days of the big media conglomerates are dwindling, and ownership of these radio stations will pass on to smaller mom and pop companies, who are doing it for the love, while making a bit of money...
Yeah, programming is garbage on the AM FM dial, has been for a long time. There are exceptions I'm sure, but generally it's just background noise, an accompaniment. Gone is the art of station programming.
Do you really beleive radio stations will ultimately fall back into the hands of small mom and pops?.. That seems so unlikely to me.
I am going to jump in here. Here's what is wrong with radio. All stations are owned by the big corporations that have a whole slew of them. Gone are the days when you had privately owned ones that had their own programming and their own record libraries. And in a market like a major area like Toronto for example almost all, on FM especially, all play the same thing....synthesized pop. They all stay on a mainstream path directed to millennials and gen Z even though they are the ones to forgo radio for paid subscriptions like spotify, streaming, podcasts, smart speakers etc. All of this because advertisers dictate what they program and advertisers want a certain demographic. Also it's the endless strings of commercials that turn people away. So all the niche programming is left out. There is no diversity. If you don't like synthesized pop then radio is not for you. You want to hear blues, folk, swing, 1920s jazz, programming like I or Artisan does you can't. Even the Rolling Stones of all bands made a new album and no terrestrial airplay? Why, it's not synthesized pop. Why can't I hear Elmore James on radio? or Frank Sinatra? Or Tammy Wynette, you get my point.
There is lots of stuff around today, that is still real bands with real instruments that only can be seen on youtube....why, because radio has tunnel vision. If it's not machine generated synthesized pop with autotune it doesn't get on to radio. There's no diversity, no playing for the smaller niche audiences. Artisan said it, you have to bring back privately owned, "ma and pa" stations a step above part 15 that will give up billions in profit and do it for the love of it and do what they want not what big corporate advertisers want. I talk about buildings and windows killing radio reception but I don't want to hear radio anyways like it is. All I want is to be able to have mine and be able to transmit out to the outside. And listen from the inside. All I listen to on commercial radio is some talk shows. An AM station based here in Toronto 740 AM(Zoomer) started out playing swing years ago, then more oldies from the 50s -70s and now morphed into sounding like all the other FM synthesized pop stations. They sell out. They had a great show every night and played all kinds of off the beaten path stuff....30s and 40s swing, blues, what you would never hear on radio except there....now gone.