We hope you will "like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter and join the conversation.

Additional Resources:

FEMA Nationwide EAS Test Website

FCC Emergency Alert System Nationwide Test Website

A National Dialogue on the Emergency Alert System

National Association of Broadcasters EAS Test Page

Society of Broadcast Engineers EAS Test Page

National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations Page

National EAS Test Info Toolkit (PDF)

National EAS Test Webinar Update: Year in Review (PDF)

EAS Best Practices Guide (PDF)

FEMA.gov

Ready.gov

Nevada Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management

On September 26th at approximately 1:00pm your Nevada broadcasters, in cooperation with the Nevada and Federal emergency management agencies, will conduct a statewide test of the Emergency Alert System. EAS provides information to the public before, during and after an emergency. The test will be carried on all local radio and television stations, as well as, by cable providers and will last less than two minutes. This test will help us to assess the state's capabilities to receive and transmit the upcoming nationwide test of the emergency alert system, which is scheduled for November 9th. As Nevada prepares to test their alert and warning capabilities, this event serves as a reminder for you to have an emergency preparedness kit in your house and office, as well as, an emergency plan for your family, business and community, and stay informed by viewing/listening to your favorite local broadcast station.

Additional Resources:

FEMA Nationwide EAS Test Website

FCC Emergency Alert System Nationwide Test Website

A National Dialogue on the Emergency Alert System

FEMA.gov

Ready.gov

Nevada Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management

From Nevada EAS Chair Adrienne Abbott: Emergency officials and broadcasters in the state of Alaska are getting ready to conduct their second FEMA-directed statewide test that simulates a national EAN EAS activation. Everyone has been working to correct problems that were identified during last years test. The FCC and FEMA plan to conduct nationwide EAS tests soon and if this Alaska EAN is successful we might see a national EAN test later this year.  Heres the announcement from the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management:

The Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Broadcasters Association (ABA) will conduct a second statewide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) in Alaska on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, at 10:00 AM Alaska Time (2 pm EST) to assess the improvements made in a previous January 2010 Alaska EAS Exercise. Reoccurring radio and television public service announcements will begin airing on December 21, 2010 to inform Alaskans about the Exercise. The PSAs will be produced in partnership with the ABA and the State of Alaska.

As the Federal, State and local governments prepare for, and test their capabilities, this event should also serve as a reminder that everyone should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency.

During the test, the general public is encouraged to visit this site again and report results of seeing or hearing the test.

EAS System PSA - Video

http://www.ready.alaska.gov/test/

The Copyright Royalty Board has released its Initial Determination of Rates and Terms for 2011 - 2015 noninteractive webcasting services.  In their decision, the Judges adopted the rates and terms of the NAB/SoundExchange agreement in its entirety.  This move makes the NAB deal applicable to all eligible commercial broadcasters that stream under the statutory license, regardless of whether or not they have opted into the NAB/SoundExchange agreement.

Significantly, the CRB acknowledged the NAB/SoundExchange agreement as a useful gauge of the weight to be assigned to the rates suggested by the interactive webcasting benchmark.  The Judges were presented with several high benchmarks ($0.0036, $0.0033, and $0.0031), but found that the negotiated rates indicated that those benchmarks overstated the prevailing market rate  Below are rates for the different categories and the full report can be found here.

NAB/Commercial Broadcaster Rates (per performance)

2011        $0.0017

2012        $0.0020

2013        $0.0022

2014        $0.0023

2015        $0.0025

Rates for Commercial Webcasters (per performance)

2011        $0.0019

2012            $0.0021

2013            $0.0021

2014            $0.0023

2015            $0.0023

Rates for Noncommercial Webcasters (per performance)

For listening over 159,140 ATH in any month:

2011        $0.0017

2012           $0.0020

2013            $0.0022

2014            $0.0023

2015            $0.0025

The FNPRM describes the benefits of a 2012 hard deadline and asks whether the deadline should be later. The FNPRM also notes that the National Broadband Plan recommends measures like digital conversion as a way to increase the efficiency of the broadcast TV spectrum to make room for mobile broadband services.

It also discusses the financial impact of the conversion on Low Power TV stations as well as translators and whether assistance such as that offered during the full power TV digital conversion is needed.

The FNPRM can be read here.

MusicFIRST coalition, the group pushing to levy a performance tax on local radio stations, today brought up to Capitol Hill Micky Dolenz of The Monkees. 

According to Radio Business Report, Mr. Dolenz joined with three congressmen for a jam session at the Capitol Visitors Center.  It sounds like it was fun, but someone should remind Mr. Dolenz that the only reason he or The Monkees are still known is because local radio stations continue to play their music.  Surely, no one remembers The Monkees from a TV show that ran for two years nearly 40 years ago.  They are remembered because radio allows their music to survive.  How ironic that these are the same radio stations MusicFIRST is looking to harm.

According to Radio Business Report, Dolenz joined with three congressmen for a jam session at the Capitol Visitor's Center.  It sounds like it was fun, but someone should remind Mr. Dolenz that the only reason anyone remembers The Monkees is because local radio stations continue to play their songs.  Surely no one remembers them solely because of a TV show that aired for two years nearly 40 years ago.

While this reminder is directed to stations in areas affected by hurricanes, the message and the obligations apply as well to the wildland fires we see every year here in the west and other natural and man-made disasters.

Here's a note from the FCC:

Under a new FCC rule, anyone who uses a wireless microphone. or similar device, that operates in the 700 MHz Band will have to stop operating their wireless microphone, or similar device, no later than June 12, 2010. To see if this law affects your wireless microphone, check our Manufacturers Equipment list at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones/manufacturers.html.

All users of 700 MHz Band wireless microphones and similar devices - including theaters, churches, schools, conference centers, theme parks, sports leagues, and musicians - will need to retune or replace, if necessary, their equipment no later than June 12, 2010. Wireless microphones that operate outside of the 700 MHz Band are not affected.

Certain wireless microphones have operated in frequencies that are needed for public safety. When these microphones were first designed, the frequencies they used were in between the frequencies that television stations used to broadcast television programs. With the completion of the digital television (DTV) transition on June 12, 2009, television stations no longer use the frequencies between 698 and 806 MHz (the 700 MHz Band) for broadcast. These frequencies are now being used by public safety entities, such as police, fire and emergency services, and by commercial providers of wireless services, such as wireless broadband services.

The wireless microphones that had been operating in the old TV broadcast channels can cause harmful interference to these public safety and wireless consumer services. Therefore, all users of wireless microphones -- or certain low power auxiliary stations -- that operate on any of the frequencies in the 700 MHz band - including both licensed users and unlicensed users - now have to stop operating in this band. Because of the danger of interference with important radio communications services, continued use of wireless microphones in the 700 MHz band after June 12, 2010 may subject operators to severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

The FCC is only prohibiting the use of wireless microphones and similar devices that operate in the 700 MHz Band. You may continue to use wireless microphones and similar devices that operate on other broadcast frequencies.

Microphones and other similar devices with cords are not affected by the FCC's decision.

Similar devices to wireless microphones are also known as equipment for "low power auxiliary stations". Typically these devices can transmit over distances of 100 meters. Examples of similar devices include wireless intercoms, wireless in-ear monitors (IEM"), wireless audio instrument links, and wireless cueing equipment. (also known as IFB).

For more information check out our Wireless Microphone Publications at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones/Pubs.html and Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones/FAQs.html

Readers of the Washington Post's commentary section yesterday were treated to a stirring editorial written by MusicFIRST Coalition's executive director Jennifer Bendall.  Unfortunately for those readers, most of what they read was fantasy.

Take a minute to read the article and then come back here and let's do some fact-checking.  We'll put Ms. Bendall's claims in italics and the facts right below.

"Congress is poised to close a loophole in copyright law that allows AM and FM music radio stations to earn billions in ad revenue every year without compensating the artists and musicians who created the songs listeners tune in to hear."

Ms. Bendall is doing her best here to generate some false momentum for the record labels' legislation.  The fact is that 259 members of Congress -- a clear, bipartisan majority -- and 26 senators oppose any move by the recording industry to impose a performance tax on your local radio station.  Let's be clear about the argument that radio stations are cashing in by exploiting your favorite artist.  Radio makes stars.  Every day artists and labels beg radio program directors to play their record.  If radio is giving artists such a bad deal, then why are they so eager to get their records played?  Here's why.  Free, over-the-air radio reaches close to 240,000,000 Americans each week.  

"It should not be too hard to do. After all, everyone deserves to be paid for their work. Local artist Crystal Waters had a big hit in 1991 with the song "Gypsy Woman (She's Homeless)." Her 1994 hit "100% Pure Love" had one of the longest reigns on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. "Say . . . If You Feel Alright" hit the Top 40 in 1997. Her most recent hit was "Destination Calabria" in 2008. Her music is played on the radio today. But Crystal and other area artists don't get a penny for those performances ."

Unfortunately Ms. Bendell, again, has her facts wrong.  Crystal Waters wrote "Gypsy Woman" (Waters said "...I wrote "Gypsy Woman (She's Homeless) sitting at my dining room table" and co-wrote her other songs, which entitles her to payouts from BMI, ASCAP or SESAC.  It's true that Waters had great success on the Billboard chart, but would her success have been as enduring and profitable -- through touring and performances off hit records -- without the support of radio?

"Artists and musicians enjoy a radio performance right in almost every other country. Those that do not have a radio performance right include Iran, North Korea, China and Rwanda. American music is played on the radio around the world. But American artists and musicians are not compensated for use of their work even in countries that have a radio performance right because we do not have a right here. We are losing about $100 million a year in foreign performance royalties."

The United States has a broadcasting system unlike any other country, so it's disingenuous to include us with Iran, North Korea, China and Rwanda.  Many other countries have either a government run or government subsidized broadcasting industry.  That's not the case in this country where broadcasting is vibrant and market-driven.  To the reciprocity argument -- find me one artist who would rather have their record played in a "performance tax country" than in the United States.

"And broadcasters themselves cannot honestly oppose paying for the music they play at the same time they are asking cable systems to pay them for use of their TV programs through retransmission consent agreements."

Here is where this argument really goes off the tracks.  Whichever side of this debate you're on, it's clear to see that comparing a performance tax on local radio with retransmission consent agreements between TV broadcasters and subscription TV services is at best untruthful and at worst an attempt to fool policymakers into believing there's a similarity.  TV broadcasters enter into private, market-based negotiations with Cable/Satellite/Telco companies for use of their programming because those same companies turn around and charge consumers each month to watch it.  On any given week, broadcast television programming occupies 90 spots on the list of the top 100 highest-rated shows.  Subscription services understand the value of broadcast programming and know they must deliver it to their customers.  Local radio stations don't charge listeners even a penny and, in turn, provide immense promotional value to artists.  Free airplay for free promotion.  It's as simple as that.

"Opponents call it a performance tax. A copyright royalty payment is not a tax, never was, never will be. They claim most of the money goes to big foreign-owned record labels. It doesn't. Most of it will go directly to artists and musicians. And those record companies are right here in the United States where they pay employees and taxes. They contend it would just benefit big-name artists. Not true. It benefits all artists and musicians."

Wrong again.  The claim that most of the money will go directly to artists and musicians is patently false.  Under the proposed legislation, 50% of the money collected goes directly to the record labels.  The remaining 50% is split up with 45% going to the primary artist and 5% to background musicians and vocalists.  And if radio stations are taxed for each song they play, they will be less inclined to take a chance and give airplay to an up-and-coming artist.  They will stick with the "big-name artists" who are proven hitmakers.

"Today, feature and legacy artists, one-hit wonders, background singers and session musicians are fighting for a little respect, fighting for what's right, and fighting for fair pay for radio airplay."

There is no doubt that artists are fighting for a little respect, but those battles are between artists and record companies and take the form of artists suing record labels in courts of law.  Even Billy Corgan, whom the labels trotted out to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee, has a history with his band Smashing Pumpkins of suing a record label.  In contrast, not a single band, artist or musician has ever sued a radio station for playing their record.

Jennifer Bendall, executive director of the MusicFIRST Coalition, wrote a dueling op-ed, which we'll cover in a later post.

Looking at these rankings of broadcast vs. subscription it's easy to see the value that broadcast programming holds for advertisers and subscription services.  It's worth noting that this week is no outlier.  Broadcast programming consistently places 85-95 shows in the top 100.

So, what do you think?  Is it better to allow TV broadcasters--who use their spectrum and licenses to serve the public (and have a proven record of doing so for decades) and will be providing mobile DTV at no charge to viewers--to keep their spectrum or should the FCC grab that spectrum and give it to wireless companies that would like to charge you $20/month for their pay video service?

I, for one, would rather watch for free my local stations, which provide local news and emergency information.

That brings me to another point.  Along with FM chips in cell phones mobile DTV puts emergency information in the palm of your hand wherever you are.  Also, there is no risk of these services jamming up mobile networks because it doesn't utilize your phone provider's data network.

For more information on mobile DTV, visit the Open Mobile Video Coalition.  To read about the mobile DTV market test starting on May 3rd in Washington, DC, click here.

While it's unfortunate that Speaker Pelosi wants to hurt your local radio station, even the very powerful Speaker has some roadblocks in her way.  In the House, 261 members--a strong, bipartisan majority--are cosponsors of H. Con. Res. 49, the Local Radio Freedom Act.  If the bill were to somehow be passed out of the chamber, it would be sent to the Senate where 27 senators have signed on to S. Con. Res. 14 opposing a tax on free over-the-air local radio.

Reports in the media indicate that much of her comments were about healthcare reform.

-- 

NAB  President and CEO Gordon Smith's  Inaugural State of the Industry Address

2010 NAB Show / April 12, 2010 / Las Vegas

Thank you and welcome to the NAB Show.  I'm Gordon Smith. And up until the 2008 Obama election tidal wave, I was a two-term Republican senator from the very Democratic state of Oregon. But, as my cousin, the late Morris Udall of Arizona said after losing an important Democratic primary to Jimmy Carter, "The voters have spoken... the bastards!"

And while I would never say that about the voters of Oregon, nevertheless here I am.

Of course another favorite saying of Cousin Mo was that the only cure for political ambition was embalming fluid. But, lest there be any doubt, my ambition is to succeed in the politics of serving America's broadcasters.

I am very happy to be here indeed.

You may ask why the NAB board would hire a defeated Republican to represent their industry when Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and the agencies in between. Well, for one thing, I've always had friends on both sides of the aisle. I've found that when people learn your father worked in the Eisenhower Administration and your mother was born into the Democratic political dynasty of Udalls, it's easy to have friends on both sides.

In fact, one of my closest friends in the Senate was the late Senator Ted Kennedy. We worked very closely together on many issues and in passing a bill that he urged be named after my deceased son, a bill on mental health that was intimately close to my heart.

I think another thing I bring to NAB is an inside view of how government works. Let's face it, Washington is a mess right now. Will Rogers once observed that, "We cuss Congress and we joke about 'em, but if they weren't in Washington they'd be doing something somewhere else that might be even worse."

The reality is that since Will Rogers said that . . . the government is everywhere -- in the health care, financial, automotive, and agricultural sectors... and of course, in communications. So the broadcasting industry has to keep on its toes, which is why I was hired. I know politics.

And in politics, perception is reality. Unfortunately, the perception of some is that broadcasting is the technology of the past. The days of radio's Edward R. Murrow reporting from wartime London and TV's Walter Cronkite influencing the nation from his anchor desk -- some think those days are gone. Yes, those days may be in the past, but broadcasting's vitality and reason for being are not.

Broadcasting is the original wireless technology. We are mobile, and both radio and television are adapting to new technologies and finding new ways to deliver the most popular and important content. That is not the past -- that is the future -- still.

And here's the reason I ultimately took this job. I genuinely believe the cause of free, over-the-air broadcasting, with its attendant public obligations, is a just and worthy cause. The values of free and local radio and television -- and the public service responsibilities that come with that -- are still relevant and vital today, even as a mature technology is being made new again.

And as my mom used to tell me as a boy, "Gordy, the best way to ruin a good story is to tell the other side."

So my job is to tell the other side -- our side.

As president of NAB, I'm charged with educating policymakers about the enduring contribution of radio and television to the public good. And I've got a great story to tell.

There are many important issues we could discuss today - threats to our revenue, to our advertising streams and to our ability to operate in a free market. But as the old maxim goes, "The mind cannot absorb more than the seat can endure." So I'm going to talk about just three issues that would change radio and television broadcasting as we know it.

First, let's talk about radio and the fee the recording industry wants to levy on stations when they play music.

It's what we call a "performance tax." Labels like to call it a "right" or a "royalty," but whatever you call it, it's basically a bailout of the major recording companies, three of the four largest of which are foreign owned. I think the American people have had enough bailouts.

The economics behind all of this are fascinating. For 80 years, free promotion and free play were the yin and the yang of the music world. Life was in balance. Then a little thing came along called the digital revolution, which the recording industry handled about as well as Louis the 16th handled the French revolution.

Technology chopped the head off the record industry's business model. So what did the industry do? It began suing people. The problem is that you can't stop technology with trial lawyers. You know you're in trouble when the health of your business is reduced to suing teenagers.

And how's that lawsuit thing been working? Not so great. So now, the recording industry, with desperation in its eye, has decided to bite the hand that feeds it. Who's hand? Ours. In other words - us.

In short, the RIAA decided radio stations should pay for promoting the record companies' songs. To fully appreciate the outrageousness of this, recall that just a few decades ago record label representatives were willing to break the law and risk jail time for the economic benefit that radio promotion offers.

The recording industry, of course, says this new fee is about fairness to artists. A statement that would be hilarious if it weren't so breathtakingly brazen. Under the record labels' proposal, the record company would get at least 50% of the money; the performer would get 45%; and the background musicians would get 5%.

But if the record company can't find the performer or the background musicians, it would keep 100% of the money. You know, it's amazing in the age of Google that the record labels are having a hard time finding artists to whom they owe money. According to one report, the labels had trouble locating the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Here's a suggestion: start looking in Utah.

And that's not the half of it. Look at the case histories. Artists from Benny Goodman to Count Basie, from the Beatles to Pink Floyd, from Cher to Eminem. And new groups I have never heard of routinely sue their record labels for unpaid royalties. One case alone included 300 performers.

Now yes, satellite radio and the Internet do pay a fee for the songs they play. But what we're talking about here is free, local radio -- available to everyone. If you choose to pay to listen to Sirius you won't hear the local news or weather updates on the Elvis channel.

And you have to ask, can you name a single Grammy winning artist that would be in that position were it not for radio?

The centrifugal forces of modern life are fraying the bonds that tether our citizens to their communities. Broadcasting, however, serves to keep our citizens connected to our communities and gives those communities coherence. That is a public good. And that's why we will continue to fight the record labels in their attempt to save their business model on the backs of free, local radio.

Now let's turn to two issues that are paramount to broadcast TV: the great spectrum grab of the new National Broadband Plan and the continuing battle over retransmission consent rights for broadcasters.

Let me first say that I applaud FCC Chairman Genachowski for the truly comprehensive effort he made to meet Congress' request for a broadband plan. We all want a plan that will help America move into a bright communications future. And broadcasters are willing to help.

We agree that broadband is good for America. And we also know that broadcasting is good for America. We want to see a bright future for both.

Our concern is that the broadband plan would yank away more than one third of the spectrum used for TV broadcasting so that wireless broadband companies can have more.

Now, broadcasters just spent $15 billion to meet the government-mandated transition to digital; the government, incidentally, spent another $2 to 3 billion to ensure a smooth switch for viewers. In fact, American consumers have spent untold billions swapping out analog TV sets for HDTV sets in detrimental reliance upon the urging of the United States Congress.

In that transition, we gave back more than a quarter of the TV spectrum, which the government then auctioned off to broadband companies. And they haven't even started to use it yet. Unfortunately, this plan appears to be an example of unnecessary government intervention when technology in the marketplace is already working through the issue.

And if history is a teacher, industry innovation solves issues far better and far faster than government.

Remember the 1996 Telecom Act? The ink was barely dry before it was substantially outdated due to technological advancements. The National Broadband Plan took a year and a half, and over $20 million, to draft. Imagine all the innovation that took place while the plan was being drafted.

With the many advancements coming to wireless that use spectrum more efficiently, you have to ask, what makes this spectrum grab -- and the disruption and loss of innovation it would cause -- really necessary?

You know, when our son, Garrett, was in kindergarten, he and I went to a Monday Night Football game in Seattle. It's one of my fondest memories.

While we were there, I needed some cash, so we went to an ATM machine, inserted the card, punched in some numbers and out came the cash.

While walking away and putting the cash in my wallet, Garrett began tugging on my shirtsleeve and asking, "Daddy, don't you want to try it again? We're getting rich here!"

Broadcasting is not an ATM that can keep spitting out spectrum. There is a minimum we need in order to be viable for the future, and to sustain the enduring value of free and local television.

If there is a broadband problem, we volunteer to help solve it. But let's make sure we do it right. Let's first get a comprehensive inventory of unused spectrum, as key lawmakers have suggested. Let's explore whether digital compression technologies and other innovations can solve this alleged spectrum shortage, without forcing broadcasters off the air.

As broadcasters, we were prepared to embrace an FCC broadband plan that was truly voluntary. But how voluntary is it when the plan says, and I quote:

"The government's ability to reclaim, clear and re-auction spectrum is the ultimate backstop against market failure and is an appropriate tool when a voluntary process stalls entirely."

This sounds about as voluntary as Marlon Brando saying in the Godfather that he wanted either the guy's signature or his brains on the contract.

Moreover, the broadband plan doesn't fully take into account the unparalleled lifeline service that broadcasters provide in times of crisis.

Make no mistake: this matter is one of homeland security. During times of emergencies, there is no way that cell phone and broadband networks will ever be as reliable as broadcasting in terms of delivering timely and accurate information to the masses.

Indeed, having DTV receivers in mobile devices - along with FM radio capability in cell phones -- would help to make America safer. These advancements demonstrate broadcasting's ability to adapt to changes in the marketplace.

The sad truth is that the people who would be most hurt by the new broadband plan are the disadvantaged and the elderly. Fifteen percent of households rely exclusively on free, over the air television. And that number appears to be growing, post DTV transition.

We're hearing anecdotal stories across America of people disconnecting cable and satellite services because of all the free digital and HD broadcast channels you receive with just an antenna.

Another thing. As you know, broadcasting is regulated to observe community standards of decency. Broadband is not. The unpleasant truth is that the Internet is rampant with lewd and degrading material.

Here is the half-facetious irony: if broadcasting loses spectrum and grandma's new HDTV is rendered useless, at least she will have the consolation of knowing her grandson can get lewd material instantaneously on his cell phone.

To put it simply, this spectrum reallocation is bad for consumers and bad for broadcasters. It's not voluntary as originally advertised. Both broadcast and broadband are agents of change.

Technological and market conditions permit broadcast television to thrive alongside expanded broadband. Broadcasters will work to ensure that broadband gaps are addressed, but we'll also work to make sure that free and local television are available to everyone.

Now, let's turn to another issue of substantial importance to our organization: the continuing battle over retransmission consent rights for broadcasters.

NAB has taken the lead with our network partners to ensure that policymakers understand that the fair and market-based retransmission consent process is working just as Congress intended.

The reality is this: broadcasters create the most compelling and most popular programming on television. Our programming provides real value to our pay TV partners, and we deserve fair compensation for providing cable and satellite viewers with programs like The Olympics, The Super Bowl, "American Idol" and "Lost."

But pay TV doesn't want to compensate us - despite the fact that our content is the backbone of every pay TV package sold. And can you believe this? Cable representatives are now trying to position themselves as consumer friendly on Capitol Hill. That's right - the cable guy as the consumer advocate! Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

Through aggressive advocacy at the commission and on the Hill, NAB is committed to ensuring that broadcasters can continue our legacy of service to the American public. No matter what others may say, understand this: Broadcasting is a cornerstone of our democracy. Consider presidential debates, the coverage of natural disasters and other emergency information like Amber Alerts and the local news.

We are America's free, local broadcasters. And we serve our communities each and every day. This is our greatest strength and our enduring value.

Broadcasting is evolving right before our eyes, and we have the incredible opportunity to shape its path.

And while I am new to this job, I am not new to the issues this industry faces. I am not new to the values it represents.

The values that underpin broadcasting are still essential to the American people and to our democracy. What broadcasters do for a living is also something they do for this country.

And so, in closing, let me quote Teddy Roosevelt who said, "Far and away, the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing."

Ladies and gentlemen, the work of the National Association of Broadcasters is worth doing, and we must do it together --- united. We need you to help us advocate for this great industry, not just in Washington, but all across America.

Let us realize the power of broadcasting and our impact on the American public. Let us continue educating, informing and entertaining our local communities. Let us embrace the digital future and all of its great opportunities.

I am very proud to be part of this industry, and I will work my heart out for you.

Thank you very much.

Seidenberg points to cable companies that have bought spectrum and left it undeveloped as somewhere the FCC can turn to reclaim spectrum.

Seidenberg--and this is interesting--thinks the market will resolve any "crisis."  His observation is very much in line with news reports that Apple and AT&T engineers worked together to alter iPhone's software to make it less of a strain on AT&T's network.  

Seidenberg's subordinate, Verizon Wireless president Lowell McAdam, sits on the CTIA board of directors.  It must be kind of tough for CTIA to push an argument that the head of the largest telecommunications provider in the country doesn't agree with.

For more information about Alert FM, click here or visit them at FEMA's booth (#C2052) at the NABShow.

The FCC's National Broadband Plan touts the tremendous benefits of broadband and the increasing role it should play in public warning and safety.  The only problem is that broadband uses a point-to-point or "one-to-one" delivery method, which can be overwhelmed quickly if many people are looking for the same information.  Broadcasting uses point-to-multipoint or "one-to-many" for information delivery, which means an unlimited number of people in a service area can all access the same information simultaneously with no worry of clogging the system.

Those of us who have been in disaster situations know that cellular networks and wireline systems become useless.  Citizens turn to the trusted voices on radio or TV for the information they need to keep their family and property safe.

Do you want to see more or less local news on your local broadcast station?  Let us know in the comments.

The audio is available by clicking here.  Full text of the National Broadband Plan is here.

Ok, all done? Great. Now consider this. If Mr. Portnow is so concerned about unknown and up-and-coming musicians making their mark on the public, perhaps he shouldve asked Beyonce, Green Day and Lady Gaga to take the night off and instead used the Grammy stage to showcase these unknown artists to the 26-million viewers at home.

I would bet that any artist would forgo the small sum they would get from a performance tax for just three minutes in front of the huge Grammy viewing audience.

While the NAB has a very competent and talented government relations team, as NABPAC chairman Larry Patrick is quoted as saying "this is Washington, money is the mother's milk of politics. You need it to have influence and to be taken seriously. There are a lot of people up there [on Capitol Hill] who expect us to play the game."

So, do read the article and hopefully you'll consider helping to fund NABPAC.

The U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 handed down a ruling making it legal for corporations (and unions) to spend directly from their treasury to support or oppose Federal lawmakers and candidates.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that although corporate spending will increase, companies whose bottom line depends on consumers may tread lightly out of fear of alienating customers.

TV and radio broadcasters, especially those in states and districts represented by party leaders and agenda-setters, should see a marked increase in political advertising.

Great articles here and here for more information.

While your editor neither knows Mr. Lombardo personally nor plays golf, the BFA is a great organization, which has done a lot of good.  If you're a broadcaster looking to donate some of your hard-earned money, or really anyone wanting to help, the BFA may be a good fit for you.  To learn more about the Foundation, click here.

Let's meet the team:

Bob Fisher - President & CEO

Adam Sandler - Vice President

Earlene Lefler - Executive Assistant

Monique Hall - NCSA Communications

Gary Campbell - Production Director

While many Americans write a check to a Cable or Satellite TV company each month, broadcasting is, in fact, an entirely free medium available to anyone for no payment or monthly subscription charge.  What you're paying for when you write that check is additional channels and features.  Radio, as the more than 235 million Americans who tune in each week know, is also entirely free.

With digital and high-definition TV and radio, free, over-the-air broadcasting has never looked or sounded clearer.

In addition to new posts, we will post some items from the last few months you may have missed.

Please be sure to comment on posts to let us know how we're doing.  Enjoy!