The Blog

I just wandered over to Vocalo for grins; listed prominently as "now playing" was something titled "a bird pooped on me this morning." Compelling content, indeed.

Odd how any bold approach to the future, regardless of media platform, always necessarily involves doing less news. Too bad Malatia can't take a cue from the nouveau Tribune and use really, really big clip art to fill space/air time.

Every time I listen to Vocalo, "now playing" features "Chicago Public Radio pooped on me again."

-- MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem

I particularly enjoyed the story I heard on Vocalo about how to cook and serve monkey testicles. Compelling stuff indeed.

The door opens a bit wider for low power neighborhood radio...

Gosh, I'd forgotten about low power neighborhood radio. Anyone know whether there's any chance the FCC will revisit the idea?

(For that matter, why do we need a "federal" communications commission? Broadcasting is mostly line-of-sight and local, so shouldn't we have local broadcasting agencies or citizen commissions instead? Why should decisions made by sold-out bureaucrats in Washington determine what I can hear on local radio in Chicago--or Cincinnati, Kansas City, Seattle or San Francisco? Some regulation and sorting-out of the broadcast spectrum is needed, but only locally, in each major broadcast area. So regulation and licensing should be a local function. I'll concede, though, that I shudder and cringe to think what we'd be treated to if Daley or Stroger seized control of a local broadcasting authority.)

I'm not sure what low power radio would accomplish. It seems completely outdated to me. If someone wanted to do some hyper-localized radio programming why wouldn't they do it on the internet? The only drawback is that few people could easilly listen to it in their car at this point. But since the programming only would go a tiny distance it is unlikely that someone would be driving their car in an area where they could listen to the station for the whole time. And in a few years most people will have internet radio in their cars anyway. This seems like a 20th century issue and strikes me as rather odd that people are still discussing it in 2009.

Internet broadcasting is fine if you have affordable, reliable access to bandwidth and a device (computer, PMP, etc.). But broadband penetration and quality of service and signal in and around Chicago isn't nearly as high as FM radio. Another point in favor of "localcasting" is a higher signal-to-noise ratio for community events: if radio is a 20th century media, announcing community meetings by taping a notice to the front door of my building is decidedly 17th century. I'd rather have a burst transmission of the week's events in my neighborhood, like an RSS feed or podcast, but I'm fortunate enough to have a computer and net access. (No car, though.) A five minute bulletin on a low power radio station might be the foundation for general audience local programming.

The original IAC raises a good point. But you could make a similar (not identical) case against all broadcast radio.

Still, it's a powerful medium. Is this because of some kind of consumer stickiness, old cusses who just refuse to switch to the Internet but will eventually die off, leaving the field to young folk who dwell comfortably online?

Or is it something about the medium itself? I suspect the latter. It's like newspapers. By and large they're in trouble not because they're unprofitable but because owners and markets saddled them with expectations of insane profitability at a time when margins were about to narrow. The print medium itself, however, remains profitable and retains a special place in the public consciousness. You could say much the same for the three major TV networks, both their entertainment programming and their news, at a time when cable and satellite deliver hundreds of channels.

It's not fully explainable. It just is. (Is this what Marshall McLuhan was talking about when he opined that the "medium is the message"? Maybe it really, really is.) In that light, neighborhood radio could still work, though you've got to concede IAC's point that drive-time programming on it wouldn't make a heckuva lot of sense.

The quest to reform low-power FM law actually is moving forward at a good clip this congressional session. The Local Community Radio Act passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee several weeks ago, and a full floor vote is anticipated in the next few weeks. In the Senate, the bill is expected to get a committee markup soon (although obviously healthcare is dominating everything on that side these days).

National groups like Prometheus Radio Project and Future of Music Coalition are optimistic that the bill will pass. It has true bipartisan support, and the big opponents of the past (including NPR) have dialed back. The bill's introducing co-sponsor on the House side, Mike Doyle (D-PA) still believes the measure may be on President Obama's desk by Christmas.

If the bill passes and is signed into law, the FCC will open up a new licensing window for new LPFM applicants. The changes the bill makes to the existing law don't necessarily solve the problems of the largest markets, but it would put the power to license back in the hands of the FCC, where it belongs. Then the Commission will be able to look at possible exceptions and alternative placement strategies in big cities like Chicago, New York, and L.A.

For those who doubt the need for broadcast radio in the 21st century, the fact remains that radio is still the cheapest, most immediate, most accessible, and most portable medium. The web definitely provides a great resource to those who aren't able to get a broadcast license, but at the end of the day, it doesn't have the flexibility that broadcast radio does. Some of the portability issues are changing with apps for mobile devices and the introduction of web radio into vehicles, but very few people are priced out of broadcast radio, which is certainly not the case for the web.

As for range, most LPFM signals travel 3-7 miles, which in a city like Chicago, would include hundreds of thousands of potential listeners, and enough range to listen in a car while running errands or otherwise traveling from neighborhood to neighborhood.

For the record, I did not say that broadcast radio was outdated. I said the need that may have existed a few years ago for low power community radio is pretty much outdated now. And it will be even more so shourtly. All intenet based devices are fast becomming very cheap. Around three years ago it cost about $400 for an IPhone or Blackberry. Now you can get one for $99 or less. In a few years, you could probably purchase one for around $20 (about the current price of an Ipod shuffle, which from my recollection originally cost close to $200). You can buy small laptops for about $200, which would have been unheard of a few years ago. In 2015, these will probably cost about $50. Everything is getting cheaper. So I really am not persuaded by the argument that the "digital divide" is a long-term problem or that people will still be priced out of the market in a few years. In around 5 to 7 years, just about every car will have access to internet radio and there will be portable internet radio devices available for about $30. I would highly recommend that anyone who is spending time attempting to get legislation passed on issues dealing with low powered broadcast radio should use their energies on something more useful.

It's hard to argue with The original IAC on this, as the technology seems to be leaning that way. And, certainly, the music industry would be one good example where an old medium was overtaken by digital.

But other media--such as the major TV networks and newspapers, which have diminished but are stabilizing and remain quite profitable with huge audience share--tell a different story. I may well be proved wrong, but I still believe that the medium itself matters, perhaps as much as the content.

I don't necessarily think you have to choose one or the other. Ideally, you have a broadcast outlet and a stream. Each allows for certain types of flexibility. It's not an either/or proposition, and I don't think most people working on the low-power FM issue are overlooking the importance of the web. I do think some people will always love broadcast radio just like some people love vinyl. It has to do with how you were brought up, what types of technology you're most comfortable with, and other personal factors.

I will add, though, that a lot of the communities fighting hardest for LPFM are those that have few resources -- migrant workers, Native populations, etc. I think it's easy for us to sit here and say that soon, everyone will be able to afford (and will feel the need for) a Blackberry (or a new car), but I think that that's still a pretty privileged perspective.

And one final note -- I think it's far easier to maintain a commitment to localism when you're talking about a low-power broadcast license than when you're talking about an online station. In the online situation, the temptation is always to go broader since your potential audience is pretty much infinite. You don't have to give in to the temptation, but it's certainly there, and I think you hear it in some local stations that have gained national and international followings online.

I've written and read so many of these things (strategic plans) that I can tell you this is the work of an agency hired by the top exec to prove the point that Akio Morita (former SONY CEO) made decades ago: American business has become the province of the analyst and the consultant.

This plan is so "bleah" as to be nonsensical -- one can only IMAGINE what the agency was paid for the drivel.

Prediction: Public Radio is gone in Chicago. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but GONE GONE GONE nevertheless.

And replacing it? Satellite radio and a billion stations available over the internet for FREE. And now, thanks to Steve Jobs, it's on my PHONE! How utterly user friendly.

And more power to 'em.

I do miss free access to Bob Edwards, however.

MPS

Back when Vocalo when it was still the "Secret Radio Project", it was presented as a highly cost effective radio/web hybrid, with an alleged firewall between their resources and WBEZ. The online aspect was to include new ways to solicit listener donations - which hasn't happened. The radio aspect was key to the low cost as it would use a pre-existing tower with a radio boost. The problem is, this plan relied on a zoning change which didn't get approved. Instead of scaling back and trying again, Malatia spent more than the project's entire budget building a new tower.

This is the start of Vocalo's financial woes which started to drain WBEZ. Vocalo had no money for PR and marketing of their initial rollout.

Now Tory admits Vocalo “has not yet built visibility or loyalty consistent with norms for successful internet startups, and remains a costly early stage venture for us.”

The problem is, after two years Vocalo is strangely low profile considering how attention can be generated with low budget tactics in new media. Beyond the Public Radio insider discussions and Reader investigations, it's so low it almost seems like they can't or won't seek a larger audience.

Maybe it's because Vocalo can't afford any more bandwidth than it already uses. Maybe because WBEZ listeners still aren't being told their money is being given to the project. Maybe it's because Vocalo's mission and purpose remains ill formed and/or badly executed.

Vocalo - and WBEZ - seems increasingly more like an expression of Malatia's own midlife crisis - expressed by attempts to be hip online and the street - more than a well organized attempt to create the next level in public media.