Clear Channel wants the FCC to force XM / Sirius to obey indecency laws

Apparently Clear Channel's new motto is "if you can't beat 'em, make life suck on the other side of the merger." The broadcast giant has dropped a whole big list of requests on the FCC to impose as conditions upon XM / Sirius for a merger, not the least of which is asking for broadcast decency rules be applied to satellite radio. Clear Channel feels the competitive threat of satellite radio could be mitigated a bit if the "edgy" content (Howard Stern) ceased to make terrestrial radio's edgy stuff look weak by comparison. Of course, the big difference is that XM and Sirius are paid subscription services, and we're guessing they're going to pound the "but HBO can do it" argument for all they've got, but it seems like these days no request is out of reach for terrestrial radio: Clear Channel also wants another satellite radio competitor, 5 percent "public interest" radio, and zero local programming or local advertising.

[John @ Mar 25th 2008 9:37AM]

uh, FUCK THAT NOISE!

[TheDude @ Mar 25th 2008 10:28AM]

I have to say it, my play list is bigger than theirs any way... I've been sick of the Ten-Song rotation for years now. Who wants to suck on the corporate music nipple? not me. Leave it for the Tweens.

[superfresh @ Mar 25th 2008 11:12AM]

No doubt. Clear Channel is the monster that begat satellite radio. You gotta love that the company that has been allowed, through government complicity, to monopolize local terrestrial radio, is now flexing its muscle on satellite. The only thing they have in common is the word "radio." Why don't they go after services like Rhapsody?

Props to Clear Channel for unlocking the secret to maximizing the potential profit of terrestrial radio, and in turn, laying it to waste.

[Frankenstein Black @ Mar 25th 2008 2:27PM]

EXACTLY, AND WHY IS THE RECORD INDUSTRY/RIAA SO SILENT ON THIS? They should be all over it pushing for the merger (overtly or covertly). It’s an opportunity to break the Clear Channel strangle hold by creating another viable vehicle to generate revenue (fees) and to peddle their wares. It also creates a unique “clean platform” for delivering the content that people are actually willing to pay for. A merged Sirius/XM helps the “bottom line”. Yea, you go ahead and stay quiet RI/RIAA. Keep chasing little old ladies and let Clear Channel and the TORRENT’ers win, YOU SILENT FOOLS!!

[Iphtashu Fitz @ Mar 25th 2008 9:47AM]

How the hell do you get "zero local programming or local advertising" on a nationwide satellite service? That would effectively mean no advertising at all, no US news at all, no US sports at all, etc. All advertising will be local to somebody listening, as would all news involving anything going on inside the US, any sports events, etc. I'm listening to a talk channel on Sirius right now and just heard an ad for Geico insurance, which has offices all around the country. Wouldn't that be considered local to virtually everybody? Sirius also carries all NFL games during football season. Wouldn't those be considered local to the cities where the games are being played? You can't "black out" geographic locations with a satellite so you'd have to get rid of all this programming entirely if those idiots at Clear Channel had their way.

[Wiserun @ Mar 25th 2008 10:42AM]

That's not particularly true, as they already have local channels (at least XM does) for major metropolitan areas. Think Atlanta weather, New York news and traffic, etc. It's nice, if you happen to live in one of those particular areas.

[Jamie_FEEB @ Mar 25th 2008 11:04AM]

These assholes don't want to have someone else change the bullshit rules they've established to keep their profits large and keeping it a virtual triopoly with CBS and Citadel. CCU trying to make sure the new BMOC gets put in their place.

Besides, it's an f'ing subscription service; the equivalent of cable, and last I checked, no one was trying to force HBO to tame down their programming.

Yet another giant with the FCC in their pocket. We'll see how this shakes out. It's funny that it hasn't been an issue until the merger stood a chance of going through.

[Frun @ Mar 25th 2008 9:48AM]

Well that would require some sort of a REbigulator, which is a concept so ridiculous it makes me want to laugh out loud and chortle.. MMhey,MMhey

Seriously though, Sirius already has some censored channels. hope this never goes through

[Brodie @ Mar 25th 2008 10:16AM]

XM for the most part is "clean". There are designated XL channels where anything goes, and those can be blocked on the receiver if one chooses to do so... That's not to say the occasional four-letter word doesn't fly on LUCY or ETHEL...

[Sam @ Mar 25th 2008 11:50AM]

woohoo Ethel!!

[Mjolnier @ Mar 25th 2008 9:49AM]

Typical B.S. Clear Channel has always had it in for Stern since he left terrestrial radio and this is just another transparent attempt to get him and his kind off the air. Of course they'd be fine with him if he worked for Clear Channel. Sirius is just like HBO - I'm willing to pay for good content and edgy stories. If you are not then there is plenty of free tv and radio to go around. It's a shame that in this country you have to pay to get better quality than what the networks give you - but such is the way it is. Sirius rules.

[BrettB @ Mar 25th 2008 10:53AM]

Yes, but your "better quality" is another man's filth. Stern is a blight on the public and I wouldn't mind him being off the air. He contributes NOTHING of value to our society. I'm not saying we should censor him, I'm just saying we should have the good sense not to listen.

[Rocketboy @ Mar 25th 2008 11:12AM]

Eh, you both suck... It's not about Stern, any more than it's about O&A, or Ron & Fez. It's about trying to restrict a company that might be taking your listening audience.

[SternOWNsYou @ Mar 25th 2008 11:39AM]

BretB you are a TOOL...what does your opinion on Stern have to do with the monopoly of them ALL clear channel demanding that XM/Sirius (PAY, I repeat PAY services) be censored

do you cover your ears when someone curses? you big baby

[Richard @ Mar 25th 2008 12:41PM]

I GUARANTEE that BrettB is one of those flag-waving, nationalistic, God-fearing bible belters who scream to the world about how "they hate our freedoms" and yet wants to shut down those freedoms that don't agree with their warped Christian values (which aren't REAL Christian values).

Of course, at the same time, BrettB and his pals are tapping feet in bathroom stalls, cheating on their spouses and viewing the most hardcore of hardcore pornography.

Wait: Satan made them do it.

[aardvark sandwich @ Mar 25th 2008 9:50AM]

In other words, its not fair to compete with you, but it is ok for you to limit their broadcasts. Pffft.

[Erwos @ Mar 25th 2008 9:55AM]

Well, to be fair, the argument does have some sense to it: XM and Sirius are using public airwaves to transmit their data. Why shouldn't they be forced to obey the same regulations as Clear Channel, which does the same thing?

[jimmy @ Mar 25th 2008 9:56AM]

an encrypted link is not public. you have to subsribe to it, and upon subscription you have the ability to have adult content blocked.

[Bob S. @ Mar 25th 2008 10:05AM]

You've got it backwards. ClearChannel should be forced to expand its programming so that XM and Sirius are unnecessary. Start catering specifically to the LGBT community, the shock jock fans (oh wait), and everyone else it ignores or marginalizes. Oh, and don't allow it to own more than one station in any market unless it does just that.

It's so sad that CC is responding to the "monopoly" (my understanding is that each service for the foreseeable future will continue to be operated independently) by trying to create its own, but it's sadder yet that some people think that's a good idea.

[Erwos @ Mar 25th 2008 10:16AM]

Doesn't matter if they're encrypted or not. The point is, they're using a public resource (the "airwaves") to transmit this data. Ergo, they should be exposed to the same public regulation as any other data service using the public airwaves (or at least that's Clear Channel's view).

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that it's not as insane as people are making it out to be.

[jimmy @ Mar 25th 2008 10:50AM]

what don't you understand. the "public" transmission is an encrypted bitstream. it is not discernible by humans, hence it can not be deemed explicit. The reason for the current FCC laws are not to stop content from being transmitted, it is to stop people who don't want themselves or their children to hear it from hearing it.

by your rationale, DirectTV/DishNetwork should not be able to carry HBO or any other pay channels. ergo your point is moot

[Johnny @ Mar 25th 2008 10:31AM]

The thing is though that only Clear Channel is following these so-called 'regulations'. They just have a stick up their ass and think everyone else should too.

[Derbeste @ Mar 25th 2008 10:37AM]

Once again, HBO uses "public airwaves too" if that is your argument. You don't see NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX going after showtime, starz, or HBO do you?

"Indecent" content is still blocked from minors by a subscriber fees (minors can't have CCs).

I have a problem with ANY company trying to take choice away from ADULTS. It makes me want to boycott any Clear Channel run stations in my area tbh.

[Thomas Trautman @ Mar 25th 2008 10:37AM]

If we are going to use the whole "free airwaves" argument...I guess the FCC should be monitoring and editing my personal cellphone conversations as well.

Sorry, but I do not see this any different than being able to order up some skinamax or hbo on my cable or sat provider.

I pay for sirius content because I don't want want commercial vanilla radio.

on last thought....If CC is able to steer the FCC, doesn't that mean that they are acting like a monopoly? These rules are put in place to keep competition and limiting one company or provider from dictating the marketplace.

[andyo @ Mar 25th 2008 10:38AM]

Erwos, the atmosphere is filled with all kinds of electromagnetic waves. If you take that "airwaves" are public just because they're just there, then every secret government communication is also public, as it is your WPA'd wifi and your wireless keyboard strokes.

[Tony @ Mar 25th 2008 11:06AM]

Direct TV uses the same public airwaves right and they broadcast porn. Cable companies deliver porn from Satellites broadcast to there head sites. Hotels major chains like Hilton and marriott have porn in there rooms all broadcast encrypted from space.
leave Sirius and Xm alone clear channel you are looking stupid

[Jake @ Mar 25th 2008 11:50AM]

Sorry, fellas, but Erwos is right. Note: this doesn't mean that CLEARCHANNEL is right, and that XM/Siruis should be brought under the same rules - largely because of the encryption/subscription issue.

Even though their signal is encrypted, they are still using "public spectrum" to broadcast their signal. Think about the recent FCC spectrum auction. Nearly every "radio frequency" that is useful is licensed for use by the government. XM/Sirius license their broadcast spectrum just like Verizon, AT&T, your local ABC affiliate, and yes, Clear Channel radio stations. This means that the SPECTRUM is in fact "public," even the content of the BROADCAST is not "publicly accessible."

This is what differentiates HBO and the other premium channels. There is no public spectrum in use. The FCC hasn't licenses any radio frequencies to those service providers. They aren't "broadcasters" in FCC-speak. They are content providers for cable operators, and the cable operators use closed networks to push the content to paid subscribers. There is no "public spectrum" in the mix. So to say that "HBO can do it" is irrelevant. They don't fall under the same set of rules because they don't use the public spectrum.

Again, this doesn't mean ClearChannel has a leg to stand on. The FCC's decency rules stem from the fact that any person with access to ubiquitous hardware can access most "broadcast" content. That is clearly not the case with satellite transmissions. The FCC would have to expand its justification for the decency rules to encompass applying it to these facts--something that they have been loathe to do in the past, and which they would have a very hard time justifying due to the "difficulty" and deliberate choice involved with accessing a satellite transmission.

oh @Andyo: secret government transmission are in fact on "public airwaves," but access to those airwaves is restricted--folks aren't allowed to build hardware that accesses those frequencies without a closely controlled license from the FCC, and even then the transmissions are encrypted. And Wifi signals are on "unlicensed" spectrum, and don't involve "broadcast" (indiscriminate blanket transmission)--so while technically on the "public airwaves," they fall under different rules.

[jason @ Mar 25th 2008 11:51AM]

Using the logic that the "airwaves" are public, the following items would be subject to the same scrutiny, and censorship: Satellite TV, Wireless Data (Wi-Fi, WiMax, Point to Point Licensed links, etc.) Cellular, any part of the internet which relies on wireless backhauls. I think you get the point. SatRad is no more public domain than any of the other items I have named.

[Kazriko @ Mar 25th 2008 1:38PM]

Jake: One hole in your argument is that DirectTV and Dish Network do license their airwaves, and do broadcast encrypted HBO and other similar channels. HBO as sent over cable might not qualify, but HBO sent over satellites does.

[Brent @ Mar 25th 2008 2:21PM]

There's another major hole in Jake's argument, CC didn't BUY the airwaves nor did broadcast TV, they were given them gratis provided they obey a set of decency regulations. Anyone can broadcast so long as they follow the FCC rules regarding interference, decency and public service. The rules change significantly once you've paid for the use.

[Jake @ Mar 25th 2008 2:23PM]

@ Kazriko:

You are correct that satellite TV is a similar model. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "whole," because I again never said that "satellite radio should be subject to the same rules," only pointed out the deficiency in the "HBO does it" argument. More of an oversight. ;-)

That said, satellite transmission of subscription-based programming, like HBO on DirecTV, is an apposite comparison, and is a good precedent for XM/Sirius to point to. The FCC either 1) has an exception in place for DirecTV/Dish, etc, or 2) has been overlooking them entirely on the decency front (not likely). XM/Sirius can make a very strong argument that they should be treated exactly the same: they offer many channels, not all of which feature "indecent" content, and few of which feature nothing but indecent content, all on a closed distribution network.

[Jake @ Mar 25th 2008 2:31PM]

@Brent:

1) That is not accurate. CC may not "buy" the airwaves, but their individual broadcasters (stations) do pay for the local license. That license contains the conditions. It is a distinction without a difference. Few if any operators "buy" their spectrum in the manner of the national cellular carriers. Most spectrum is licensed. Now, your point MIGHT be relevant if XM and Sirius actually have purchased rights to their spectrum, rather than "leased" it--but I don't have that information nor do I care to look for it right now. If that's the case, you are right, the rules change.

2) Again, I'm not saying CC should prevail, just that they have a jurisdictional argument. I'm not really "making an argument" so much as "adding information to the discussion." Or at least that's my intent. ;-)

[Brent @ Mar 25th 2008 2:52PM]

@Jake

Local licenses are fees though, not leases for the airwaves. It's a crappy distinction, but one that exists nonetheless. There is no cost as such for the right to use the airwaves. I guess I could be wrong in terms of radio, but I know this is the television standard. I believe they follow the same regulation. Whether XM/Sirius leases or has purchased it's spectrum it does not operate in the open frequency between 89.1 and 107.9.

[jimmy @ Mar 25th 2008 9:55AM]

can i get a 'hell' with that 'no'? thats why XM has parental controls! if you don't like adult content, you can have it blocked from specific radios. Only "XL" channels are uncensored, there is only like 10 of those. I'm glad clearchannel is shitting their pants, they are awful.

[Jojee @ Mar 25th 2008 11:03AM]

Its "hell to the no". Gotta stay current.

If I have to pay to be censored with satellite....then HBO/Showtime/Cinemax/Stars better be censored too!

[Brent @ Mar 25th 2008 2:24PM]

But since we're talking about a 'NO' to censorship shouldn't that be a fuck no, or fuck to the no?

[zargon @ Mar 25th 2008 9:57AM]

Clear Channel can go to hell. I didn't really read it, but CC is such a pile of shit and has driven many good radio stations out of the Twin Cities.

I am glad that 93x, my favorite radio station, isn't owned by them and they won't be able to take them out since they are owned by ABC Disney.

[NHAnimator @ Mar 25th 2008 12:08PM]

That's ABC Disney ESPN to you, sir.

[Brent @ Mar 25th 2008 2:29PM]

Milwaukee has the greatest radio station ever. INDEPENDENTLY owned by a guy with enough money that he has no interest in selling. They at one point hired a consultant to help out with their market share, then got complaints that their programming had gone to crap because it was all the mainstream stuff so they fired the consultants and now run a truly independent station. Nice mix of alternative and rock, a little indie hour on Sunday nights with the occasional bigger band mixed throughout. They also have fewer commercials than any of the other stations. 102.1 if anyone's ever in the area....

[Apreche @ Mar 25th 2008 9:58AM]

They obviously only want the Sirius/XM to have to obey these rules because the uncensored nature of satellite radio gives it a competitive advantage over terrestrial radio. They could also have chosen to ask the FCC to just remove the law for terrestrial radio, because that would also remove the competitive advantage.

They get the same business result either way, but they choose to fight for the option that is worse for the consumer. Yeah, way to make people hate you more than they already do.

[Mike @ Mar 25th 2008 10:08AM]

This is an interesting point. Has anyone ever seriously proposed a radio "V-Chip"?

Granted the TV V-Chip doesn't seem to be used, although I believe that the broadcasters are required to encode the information to make it work. Even cable tv and sat tv have parental controls, yet I don't know anyone who uses them.

It's unfortunate that people will complain about content, even though they potentially have the ability to restrict that content from the privacy of their own homes. Instead they figure that NO ONE should hear/see things that they don't want to see.

[Earl @ Mar 25th 2008 10:05AM]

Who needs the FCC when we have these people called "parents?" The "parents" have the job of filtering what there children can and cannot watch. Why are we paying idiots to tell me a four letter word is "bad?"

[Earl @ Mar 25th 2008 10:06AM]

I meant THEIR children. My fingers don't work...lol

[John @ Mar 25th 2008 12:57PM]

What's a parent?

[opus @ Mar 25th 2008 10:05AM]

Clear Channel destroyed radio (repeat DESTROYED IT) so I hope SiriusXM ads 100 million subscriptions over the next year and drains every available ad sales dollar from terrestrial radio until CC is balled up on the floor in the fetal position...that goes for the NAB too.

[Reid @ Mar 25th 2008 10:36AM]

Clear Channel and the FCC both destroyed radio.

Clear Channel gobbled up all of the local stations, and the FCC is pursuing "obscenity" more and more. Nobody listens to the radio because nobody wants to hear dead spots and blanks where their music used to be. In order to cover costs from a falling listener base, Clear Channel crams in more and more ads, and fewer and fewer people listen.

When was the first time that you heard a song on MTV and they censored the word "green" or something similarly ridiculous? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

[Matt Keller @ Mar 25th 2008 11:59PM]

I completely agree. CC is the owner of WAXQ 104.3 here in NY, and it's really a terrible station. Its the same tired songs over and over. 102.3 (WBAB) is a much better station, and it's owned by Cox.

[bamboo @ Mar 25th 2008 10:08AM]

I find it funny that a company like clearchannel is complaining considering they are as close to a monopoly as regs allow. Ever wonder why you hear the same songs over and over and on different channels. Yep, blame C.C.
From the Wiki:
"With 1,200 stations, Clear Channel is the largest radio station group owner in the United States, both by number of stations and by revenue. According to BIA Financial Network, Clear Channel Radio recorded more than $3.5 billion in revenues in 2005, more than $1 billion more than the number-two group owner, CBS Radio."
There are plenty more reasons not to like them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications#Criticism_of_Clear_Channel

[Khris @ Mar 25th 2008 10:10AM]

Wow! What a bunch of whiners! I knew Clear Channel had morons working for them, but I didn't realize the Execs were still sucking milk from their Mothers.

[macdoc @ Mar 25th 2008 10:12AM]

Clear Channel can drop dead. The FCC need to be disbanded. This is completely reticules!!! OH if I hear a BAD word I'll turn to a rock....FUCK these people.

Send your comments to the FCC at FCC.gov I did last night. Look for the link to comments on the merger. Do it, Do it NOW!!!

Be nice and state just the facts and how you feel!! Fill they in box!!