Infinity turns to amateurs to defend itself
FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2005
The Associated Press
Infinity Broadcasting, a terrestrial radio company whose business model
is being challenged by the iPod phenomenon, is borrowing a page from its
rival's playbook.
Next month, Infinity will convert an underperforming station in San
Francisco to a format that will play only "podcasts," or amateur
recordings distributed via the Internet to listeners' iPods and other
digital music players.
Infinity, which is part of the Viacom media conglomerate that also owns
CBS and MTV, announced Wednesday that it would convert its KYCY-AM
station in San Francisco to the new format on May 16.
Robert Unmacht, a radio consultant in Nashville who tracks radio
formats, confirmed that it would be the first radio station in the
United States with an all-podcast format.
Podcasts have become popular in the past several months with the booming
use of Apple Computer's iPods and other portable digital listening
devices. Podcasts are essentially audio files that people make on their
own and then upload to Internet sites. Listeners can then copy them to
their devices and play them whenever they want.
A huge variety of podcasts is available through aggregator sites like
iPodder, ranging from random musings on pop culture and sports to music
or movie commentary. Unlike radio broadcasts, they can be stored and
listened to at any time, paused and replayed.
Joel Hollander, the chief executive of Infinity, said the station, which
would be promoted under the name KYOURADIO, would run material submitted
by listeners but screened to make sure it conforms with U.S. federal
broadcasting standards for decency.
Hollander described the format change as something of an "experiment,"
saying the company had not decided how long it would try it before
deciding whether to keep it.
Infinity has been one of the hardest-hit traditional radio broadcasters
as Wall Street frets about stagnant advertising revenues and declining
audiences. Parent company Viacom took a $10.9 billion charge in February
to recognize the declining value of its radio holdings.
Viacom's managers have said they intend to sell off its smaller stations
and invest more money in top-market outlets.
Despite the challenges, radio remains hugely profitable. Viacom reported
last week that its radio division made 41 cents in profit on each dollar
of revenue in the first quarter - a very high margin for any business,
but still down from 44 cents on the dollar from the same period a year ago.
With KYCY, Infinity is taking little financial risk because the station
is performing so poorly. Meanwhile, radio industry leader Clear Channel
Communications has been trying to lure listeners back in by reducing the
amount of commercials. So far, Infinity, the next biggest player in
radio, has not matched Clear Channel's "less is more" initiative.
Infinity Broadcasting, a terrestrial radio company whose business model
is being challenged by the iPod phenomenon, is borrowing a page from its
rival's playbook.
Next month, Infinity will convert an underperforming station in San
Francisco to a format that will play only "podcasts," or amateur
recordings distributed via the Internet to listeners' iPods and other
digital music players.
Infinity, which is part of the Viacom media conglomerate that also owns
CBS and MTV, announced Wednesday that it would convert its KYCY-AM
station in San Francisco to the new format on May 16.
Robert Unmacht, a radio consultant in Nashville who tracks radio
formats, confirmed that it would be the first radio station in the
United States with an all-podcast format.
Podcasts have become popular in the past several months with the booming
use of Apple Computer's iPods and other portable digital listening
devices. Podcasts are essentially audio files that people make on their
own and then upload to Internet sites. Listeners can then copy them to
their devices and play them whenever they want.
A huge variety of podcasts is available through aggregator sites like
iPodder, ranging from random musings on pop culture and sports to music
or movie commentary. Unlike radio broadcasts, they can be stored and
listened to at any time, paused and replayed.
Joel Hollander, the chief executive of Infinity, said the station, which
would be promoted under the name KYOURADIO, would run material submitted
by listeners but screened to make sure it conforms with U.S. federal
broadcasting standards for decency.
Hollander described the format change as something of an "experiment,"
saying the company had not decided how long it would try it before
deciding whether to keep it.
Infinity has been one of the hardest-hit traditional radio broadcasters
as Wall Street frets about stagnant advertising revenues and declining
audiences. Parent company Viacom took a $10.9 billion charge in February
to recognize the declining value of its radio holdings.
Viacom's managers have said they intend to sell off its smaller stations
and invest more money in top-market outlets.
Despite the challenges, radio remains hugely profitable. Viacom reported
last week that its radio division made 41 cents in profit on each dollar
of revenue in the first quarter - a very high margin for any business,
but still down from 44 cents on the dollar from the same period a year ago.
With KYCY, Infinity is taking little financial risk because the station
is performing so poorly. Meanwhile, radio industry leader Clear Channel
Communications has been trying to lure listeners back in by reducing the
amount of commercials. So far, Infinity, the next biggest player in
radio, has not matched Clear Channel's "less is more" initiative.
Infinity Broadcasting, a terrestrial radio company whose business model
is being challenged by the iPod phenomenon, is borrowing a page from its
rival's playbook.
Next month, Infinity will convert an underperforming station in San
Francisco to a format that will play only "podcasts," or amateur
recordings distributed via the Internet to listeners' iPods and other
digital music players.
Infinity, which is part of the Viacom media conglomerate that also owns
CBS and MTV, announced Wednesday that it would convert its KYCY-AM
station in San Francisco to the new format on May 16.
Robert Unmacht, a radio consultant in Nashville who tracks radio
formats, confirmed that it would be the first radio station in the
United States with an all-podcast format.
Podcasts have become popular in the past several months with the booming
use of Apple Computer's iPods and other portable digital listening
devices. Podcasts are essentially audio files that people make on their
own and then upload to Internet sites. Listeners can then copy them to
their devices and play them whenever they want.
A huge variety of podcasts is available through aggregator sites like
iPodder, ranging from random musings on pop culture and sports to music
or movie commentary. Unlike radio broadcasts, they can be stored and
listened to at any time, paused and replayed.
Joel Hollander, the chief executive of Infinity, said the station, which
would be promoted under the name KYOURADIO, would run material submitted
by listeners but screened to make sure it conforms with U.S. federal
broadcasting standards for decency.
Hollander described the format change as something of an "experiment,"
saying the company had not decided how long it would try it before
deciding whether to keep it.
Infinity has been one of the hardest-hit traditional radio broadcasters
as Wall Street frets about stagnant advertising revenues and declining
audiences. Parent company Viacom took a $10.9 billion charge in February
to recognize the declining value of its radio holdings.
Viacom's managers have said they intend to sell off its smaller stations
and invest more money in top-market outlets.
Despite the challenges, radio remains hugely profitable. Viacom reported
last week that its radio division made 41 cents in profit on each dollar
of revenue in the first quarter - a very high margin for any business,
but still down from 44 cents on the dollar from the same period a year ago.
With KYCY, Infinity is taking little financial risk because the station
is performing so poorly. Meanwhile, radio industry leader Clear Channel
Communications has been trying to lure listeners back in by reducing the
amount of commercials. So far, Infinity, the next biggest player in
radio, has not matched Clear Channel's "less is more" initiative.
Infinity Broadcasting, a terrestrial radio company whose business model
is being challenged by the iPod phenomenon, is borrowing a page from its
rival's playbook.
Next month, Infinity will convert an underperforming station in San
Francisco to a format that will play only "podcasts," or amateur
recordings distributed via the Internet to listeners' iPods and other
digital music players.
Infinity, which is part of the Viacom media conglomerate that also owns
CBS and MTV, announced Wednesday that it would convert its KYCY-AM
station in San Francisco to the new format on May 16.
Robert Unmacht, a radio consultant in Nashville who tracks radio
formats, confirmed that it would be the first radio station in the
United States with an all-podcast format.
Podcasts have become popular in the past several months with the booming
use of Apple Computer's iPods and other portable digital listening
devices. Podcasts are essentially audio files that people make on their
own and then upload to Internet sites. Listeners can then copy them to
their devices and play them whenever they want.
A huge variety of podcasts is available through aggregator sites like
iPodder, ranging from random musings on pop culture and sports to music
or movie commentary. Unlike radio broadcasts, they can be stored and
listened to at any time, paused and replayed.
Joel Hollander, the chief executive of Infinity, said the station, which
would be promoted under the name KYOURADIO, would run material submitted
by listeners but screened to make sure it conforms with U.S. federal
broadcasting standards for decency.
Hollander described the format change as something of an "experiment,"
saying the company had not decided how long it would try it before
deciding whether to keep it.
Infinity has been one of the hardest-hit traditional radio broadcasters
as Wall Street frets about stagnant advertising revenues and declining
audiences. Parent company Viacom took a $10.9 billion charge in February
to recognize the declining value of its radio holdings.
Viacom's managers have said they intend to sell off its smaller stations
and invest more money in top-market outlets.
Despite the challenges, radio remains hugely profitable. Viacom reported
last week that its radio division made 41 cents in profit on each dollar
of revenue in the first quarter - a very high margin for any business,
but still down from 44 cents on the dollar from the same period a year ago.
With KYCY, Infinity is taking little financial risk because the station
is performing so poorly. Meanwhile, radio industry leader Clear Channel
Communications has been trying to lure listeners back in by reducing the
amount of commercials. So far, Infinity, the next biggest player in
radio, has not matched Clear Channel's "less is more" initiative.
Wireless wonder at a fraction of the cost
Adam Werbach
Friday, April 15, 2005
San Francisco Chronicle
In the coming weeks, the city of San Francisco will request proposals for a plan for a community broadband network -- a network that can provide the people of San Francisco a blisteringly fast connection to the Internet at a fraction of the cost of Comcast and SBC.
That's the good news: The technology is here, it's cheap and cities across the country are doing it already.
But here's the bad news: During the next year of planning, you're going to be bombarded with messages about how the incompetent, bloated city bureaucracy is going to chase businesses from our town and waste millions of dollars on a fool's quest. It's not surprising; the cable and phone companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a wired infrastructure that the people of San Francisco can leapfrog for a fraction of the cost.
Today, high-speed Internet service in San Francisco costs too much. Each month, San Franciscans pay about $50 for a high-speed Internet connection from either SBC or Comcast. In some neighborhoods, like Bayview-Hunters Point, it's not even universally available at that outrageous price.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, recognizing that a fast connection to the Internet is critical for economic development and public safety, set a goal of getting every resident access to a high-speed Internet connection. Supervisor Tom Ammiano had already created an initiative to study the feasibility of a municipal broadband system. Last month, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission took up the cause by taking the lead on the project with the city's Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, paving the way for community broadband to be another utility, like water and sewer services. The pieces are in place.
Here's how it could work: San Francisco would use the streetlight poles that it already owns to send wireless Internet signals throughout the city. The signals are harmless and similar in frequency to your cordless phone. Using a wireless Internet card on your desktop or laptop computer, you would tie into the city network, perhaps by putting a small antenna on your window. You would either pay the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission or an Internet service provider a small fee for access to the network that would be many times faster than current cable-modem or DSL services.
How much would it cost? It depends on which model we use. The city of Philadelphia will cover a little less than three times the land mass of San Francisco and will be charging subscribers $16 to $20 a month for Internet services. We could decide to create enterprise zones -- Chinatown, Bayview- Hunters Point, the Mission -- where access is free. We could make wireless Internet access free at all libraries, schools and community centers. With a city network, all these choices are open.
Opponents say that the unfairly subsidized entry of cities into the broadband arena will ruin the high-functioning free market for broadband services in the United States. The truth is that the highly subsidized cable- and-telephone company duopoly lacks competition and is limiting our economic growth. According to Media Access Project, the United States ranks 13th among developed nations in access to broadband and pays more than 10 times as much per megabit of speed as the Japanese or Koreans. Municipal networks, or even the threat of them, provide the competition to keep prices low and the quality of service high.
Community broadband doesn't "crowd out" competitors anymore than the BART airport extension crowded out airport shuttles and taxicabs from SFO; even though BART opponents claimed that it would put both out of business. San Francisco can provide a base level of high-speed service to its citizens; the cable and telephone companies can focus on higher-priced commercial applications, or use the city's broadband infrastructure to help lower their costs.
The unfair competition is not coming from cities such as San Francisco, but from the incumbent companies who enjoy a wealth of federal and state tax incentives. The phone companies have had years of monopolistic protection to establish their market position; to claim that the entrance of cities will ruin the free market that exists is specious. There is no free market, so the companies would rather regulate than compete.
And that's exactly what they're doing. One of the reasons I'm pushing San Francisco to move as quickly as possible on this initiative is that the telephone-and-cable lobby has already succeeded in passing state laws that prohibit 14 states from creating their own municipal broadband networks. If we don't get San Francisco into this arena soon, we might lose the chance. Expanding the reach of the public sector in an era when privatizing and outsourcing are de rigueur is not something that we should expect will be easy. But the people of San Francisco deserve the world's fastest and most inexpensive Internet access. Over the next year, we'll be refining the plan and looking for your support.
Adam Werbach is a member of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission who is also launching Progressive Film Club (www.progressivefilmclub.com).
by Timothy Karr
We have Big Media to thank for saving Americans from themselves. Just as the notion of affordable broadband for all was beginning to take hold in towns and cities across the country, the patriots at Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, Bell South and SBC Communications have created legislation that will stop the “red menace” of community internet before it invades our homes.
And to think that Americans might want to receive high-speed access at costs below the monopoly rates set by these few Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
Today, monthly broadband packages offered by the national carriers hover above $50, barring access to millions of Americans who can’t afford the sticker price. Cities and towns across the country have taken up the task of building a cheaper alternative -- often choosing easy-to-build wireless mesh networks -- to bridge the gap that has kept many on the darker side of the digital divide.
Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise.
Their weapon of choice is industry-crafted legislation that restricts local governments from offering public service Internet access at reasonable rates. Laws are already on the books in a dozen states. This year alone, 10 states are considering similar bills to block public broadband or to strengthen existing restrictions.Spinning broadband as theirs alone to provide, ISPs have chalked up some early victories—including a draconian law now on the books in Pennsylvania, which strips local governments of the right to choose their own homegrown broadband solutions without the prior approval of a monopoly phone company. In late 2004, Verizon dictated the law word-for-word to local legislators, who then quietly slipped it into the middle of a 72-page bill that appeared to call for improved communications infrastructure for all Pennsylvanians.
It will have the opposite effect.
Forcing public broadband networks to ask permission from Verizon before offering service is akin to forcing public libraries to ask permission from Borders before checking out books.
Meanwhile, the United States has slid from first to thirteenth place in national broadband penetration, falling behind South Korea, Japan and Canada, where effective private-public sector initiatives have paved over the digital divide, allowing more citizens to reap the economic benefits of the open information era at a fraction of the costs we take for granted.
Not so in the United States. A nation that once prided itself as the global pacesetter in technological innovation and affordable communications is now held in the thrall of corporations eager to keep a basic 21st Century right—the right to connectivity—from citizens who can’t afford their exorbitant access fees.
How has America fallen so far back?
The struggle for accessible, locally provided broadband has been building for several years. But it didn’t hit the corporations’ radar until the middle of 2004, when larger cities such as Philadelphia and San Francisco recognized broadband access as a basic public utility—no different from water, gas or electricity—that they could provide.
It’s easy to understand the local appeal. Broadband networks have proven a win-win for municipal governments: Community internet creates free-market competition for communications services, improves schools, enhances public safety and social services, and encourages entrepreneurs through public-private partnerships. These networks are relatively cheap to build and bring technology—and resulting economic opportunity—to low-income urban neighborhoods and rural communities that are routinely passed over by the large commercial providers.
For consumers and citizens, low-cost broadband is extremely popular. Across the country municipal referenda and city council measures in favor of building public broadband pass easily—in some cases offering not only community Internet, but also television and telephone service.
“Access to the Internet today is as much a necessity of life as the more traditional services and should be available to all,” says Jonathan Baltuch, an economic development consultant from St. Cloud, Florida, a city that voted to provide citizens with a wireless network covering 30 square miles.
According to Baltuch, St. Cloud’s municipal network has yielded a considerable return to residents. Prior to the city’s broadband network, a St. Cloud resident paid on average $450 a year for commercial Internet access. Today they pay on average $300 a year in property taxes—money that not only provides broadband access but also supports efforts to keep city streets clean, pick up residential garbage and provide for local police and fire protection. “By the city providing this one service to its residents the average household savings will be 50 percent more than the average tax bill for all city services,” Baltuch says. “Further the $3 to $4 million per year that is leaving the city to flow to corporate headquarters all over the country will stay in the local economy.”
Philadelphia decided to follow suit. Last year, Mayor John F. Street announced plans for “Wireless Philadelphia” a project that by next year will provide the city's population of 1.6 million, spread out over 135 square miles, with a full range of Internet services.
It was at this point that the incumbent ISPs began to show their horns. The ISPs is loath to loosen their stranglehold on a market that, according to the Telecommunications Industry Association, could yield $212.5 billion in revenues by 2008.With so much at stake, it was time to mark out their territory and smother municipal broadband projects wherever they began to take root.
The goal was simple—legislate competition out of existence. But to do so the industry needed allies in its fight against local choice. It found them easily among state representatives willing to sell statehouse votes to fill their campaign coffers, and Washington-based think tanks—such as the Cato Institute and the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC)—willing to produce “research” that pleased their corporate funders.
To this mix of industry sock puppets add a gullible media. In a finely targeted media campaign, the “evils” of municipal broadband were pressed upon local journalists who were willing to echo corporate concerns without digging for an opposing view. Too often, local papers failed to follow the money that linked their sources at the Cato Institute and NMRC to the industry—taking at face value comments and data from these think tanks without revealing the conflicts of interest that would impugn their research.
A report discrediting community Internet issued by NMRC, for example, has been cited nearly a dozen times by journalists in the two months since its release. Not a single reporter bothered to let readers in on the fact that the NMRC receives money from the same corporations whose policy positions it just happens to profess.
On February 17, the battle over access finally graced the front-page of the New York Times, with a story pegged to Philadelphia’s ambitious plans to turn the city into “one gigantic wireless hot spot.” The first quote by Times writer James Dao went to Adam Thierer, identified as “director of telecommunications studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.” He told the Times: “The last thing I’d want to see is broadband turned into a lazy public utility.”
Dao failed to note that the Cato Institute is funded by Verizon, SBC Communications, Time Warner, Comcast and Freedom Communications. Dao then interviewed David L. Cohen, executive vice president of Comcast, who also disparaged community networks.
Again, Dao failed to alert readers to Cohen’s web of interests that might impugn his integrity. In a previous incarnation, Cohen served as chief of staff to then Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell. Rendell has since moved into the governor’s mansion, while Cohen jumped to the private sector. This relationship might explain why the governor ignored widespread public opposition and signed into law last December the bill that shafted Pennsylvania communities seeking to offer homegrown broadband services.
These corporations say that they’re shutting down homegrown broadband efforts to safeguard the best interests of American free enterprise. But, as Dianah Neff, Philadelphia’s chief technology officer, asked in a recent column for ZDNet: “When was the last time they were elected to determine what is best for our communities? If they’re really concerned about what is important to all members of the community, why haven’t they built this type of network that meets community needs or approached a city to use their assets to build a high-speed, low-cost, ubiquitous network?”
Source: Media Citizen
###
Readers ask Chron executives a few tough questions at a rare public forum.
By Lani Silver
SF Bay Guardian, April 6
AS A NATIVE San Franciscan and a daily reader of the San Francisco Chronicle, I, like others, am vitally interested in having a local daily paper that represents our great city. It is with this aspiration that I attended an evening of feedback to Chronicle editors and reporters March 30 at the San Francisco Public Library. Participants in the Chronicle's Two Cents column met with top editors to give our opinions on the newspaper.
Emotions ran high. Almost everyone who spoke had a longing for an improved paper. It was apparent that this audience of l50 had thought long and hard about ways to make the Chron better. There was a flavor to the meeting, and it was a pungent combination of devotion and frustration.
To many in the room, the world is going to hell in a handbasket – and the Chronicle barely notices. One by one, readers told the panel they were distressed by sensationalistic reporting, lack of diversity, and lack of community stories in the Chronicle.
In my opinion, the paper is soft on President George W. Bush, and, like most other media, is following a disturbing national trend, one that has a dangerous conservative underpinning.
At a long table on the auditorium's stage sat Phil Bronstein (executive vice president and editor), Carolyn White (deputy managing editor, features), Steve Proctor (deputy managing editor), Jan Goben (copy editor, Friday section), Rachel Gordon (city hall reporter), Deborah Brown (Friday section editor), Robert Rosenthal (managing editor), Jason Johnson (reporter), Ilene Lelchuk (city hall reporter), and Chuck Finnie (assistant metro editor, San Francisco).
Bronstein's opening comments were preemptive and defensive but had their charm. After lamenting Herb Caen's death for five minutes, he admitted diversity was a problem for the Chronicle, saying, "Just look at this panel," which included only one African American. He explained that two others were on deadline.
On the plus side, Bronstein boasted that the reporting on same-sex marriage was the best in the country. The woman next to me nudged me with her elbow and said, "It better be."
Hands flew into the air. Despite three failed microphones and editors who listened but did not take notes, people spoke their minds. This was not a shy crowd.
Most comments centered on how to improve the paper. The two most prevalent themes of the evening were the need for more reporting on "the community" and the need for more diversity on the Chronicle staff and in the paper. We all take the Chronicle and its shortcomings very personally.
Proctor agreed with a comment that the community section was sometimes sparse, particularly in the Sunday edition.
Comments included: "Your slant on the decrease in homelessness is bunk." "Why do you go along with the city hall party line?" "We want more articles on seniors." "We want more investigative reporting." "There was nothing in the paper about the San Francisco Marathon." Everyone laughed when a woman said, "How many flipping birthday parties does Michael Tilson Thomas have anyway?" The biggest applause of the night came from the woman who said, "I hate Debra Saunders," To which Bronstein retorted that editorial page writers are meant to challenge our existing beliefs.
Other comments included: "You editorialize all of your articles." "Why can't you talk more about outsourcing and greed." "I want to read about unusual things, like the windmills of Holland." One man said he could not believe the lack of good grammar in the paper. The speaker mocked everyone by angrily reading a few poorly constructed sentences from the paper. Rosenthal admitted that it was hard to find good copy editors.
The most vociferous critics of the night lambasted the Chronicle for its lack of Asian reporters and coverage of the Asian community.
Then it was my turn. On the spot, I cut my four pages of notes into the required 60-second slot. My suggestions for improving the newspaper include:
• Have more photographs of people of all ethnicities.
• Put all Scott Peterson stories on the back page.
• Bring back Stephanie Salter.
• Learn more about institutional racism.
• List more community events in the calendar.
• Give free ads to poor people.
• Hire an ombudsperson or specialist on diversity.
• Don't be so conservative.
• Since there's a society column, have a column on activism.
I concluded by asking how corporate control dictated the newspaper's needs.
In response Bronstein said, "No one from corporate headquarters has ever interfered with anything that was printed in the newspaper."
The audience was united: less sensationalistic writing, more news, and more diversity. Newspapers are meant to be the voice of the people, but the Hearst Corp. decides who gets to speak and who does not. The mainstream press provides a venue for only a certain part of the public. We all know it; it's just hard to face.
Lani Silver is an oral historian, women's studies teacher and activist.