The NAB filed comments with the FCC in support of eliminating the Main Studio Rule, which has been on the FCC’s books since 1940, and was revised in 1998. The NAB says eliminating the rule will have no negative impact on how radio stations serve their communities, are inconsistent with the expectations of listeners who frequently interact with stations using phones, email, station websites, mobile apps, and social media. And, it will help stations operate more efficiently. The rule requires a station’s main studio to be located within or very close to that station’s community of license.
The NAB cited several examples of how stations can better serve their communities without the main studio rule.
– Univision has observed that “[p]ermitting stations to co-locate would yield administrative and operational cost savings, encourage collaboration among staff, and result in the redirection of resources toward additional programming and public service opportunities.”
– Bemjidi Radio explained that AM stations’ cost of operations would be “greatly reduced” by allowing studio co-location and changing staffing requirements.
– While the exact dollar savings may vary widely, one AM station operator estimates that eliminating main studios “could easily save upwards of $100,000 per year in rent, utilities, insurance, payroll, etc.”
– NAB staff learned that one station was able to implement an HD upgrade because of savings realized from a main studio rule waiver.
– Another station reported that having the flexibility to co-locate studios would save approximately $50,000-$75,000 per year, which it could use to hire an additional person to staff its news team.
– Another broadcaster reports that he has owned and operated two stations in the past that ultimately went “dark” because of the financial challenges of staffing the stations’ main studios. He observed that had there been regulatory relief at that time, the communities might still enjoy local radio service.
LOL! Well, if that’s the case then why not also just get rid of the legal I.D. I mean, if you’re not going to be physically located in or near the town that you’re licensed to, then why even bother mentioning the town’s name to begin with? And if you’re a station in a small town but you’re relatively near a big city market why not just keep mentioning the big city and ignore where you are actually located. This way the listeners and potential advertisers will think you’re actually in that big city even though your signal barely, if it at all reaches it. I mean if we are going to deregulate then why not do it all the way? Right?
Mr. Krafft hits it right on the nose.