WASHINGTON, D.C. — It is the FCC that is currently considering a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would allow program origination on a FM booster — the lynchpin for the commercialization of GeoBroadcast Solutions’ “ZoneCasting” technology.
The NAB and a slew of its Members are dead-set against ZoneCasting. Smaller broadcasters and African American-focused broadcast advocacy groups believe it would benefit, not harm, radio station owners who presently struggle to attract advertisers.
While the Commission reviews the comments, a Republican House Member from South Carolina has been joined by 12 colleagues who are taking the anti-ZoneCasting fight directly to the FCC’s Chairwoman.
Introducing Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)., the newest figure to emerge as an opponent of ZoneCasting.
Duncan, and 12 other Members of the House Energy and Commerce Commission, have written a letter addressed to Jessica Rosenworcel in which the House Members voice their concerns over the use of FM Boosters to target certain communities.
With geo-targeted programming and ads for up to five minutes every hour the goal of ZoneCasting, concerns over interference have clouded the technology from a commercial rollout. The NAB, an early supporter of the ZoneCasting concept, did an about-face once it reviewed its own tests, which yielded many concerning results for the association.
Also changing their stance on ZoneCasting was Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), who in July all but retracted a late 2020 statement expressing approval of the FCC’s consideration of modifying FM booster rules “that could potentially help minority-owned stations better serve their communities.”
Just seven months later, Clarke joined Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), whose district includes the Hispanic hotbeds of St. Cloud and Kissimmee, Fla., in expressing “serious concerns” about the very FM booster rule modification she previously cheered.
Neither Democrat signed the Duncan letter. But, the bigger takeaway is that the House now has bipartisan support against ZoneCasting, which should please the NAB. And, while it is ultimately the FCC’s decision to approve it, a 2-2 deadlock may prompt Congress to step in and challenge the Commission.
Signing the letter with Duncan are Richard Hudson, Fred Upton, Greg Pence, Bill Johnson, Neal Dunn, David McKinley, Debbie Lesko, Billy Long, Tim Walberg, H. Morgan Griffith, Buddy Carter and Larry Bucshon.
The signing of the letter by Long is noteworthy, as he has been a vocal supporter of broadcast radio and television in Congress in recent years.
“We are specifically concerned about the harmful impacts of such selective use of public airwaves on rural communities, which rely disproportionately on broadcast radio for news, emergency information, and entertainment,” the letter begins.
With severe weather impacting South Carolina last week as Hurricane Ian ravaged the coast, Duncan noted how Radio “is a lifeline” for those impacted by extreme weather events. In rural areas with limited broadband service, local broadcast radio is even more essential, he said.
That’s what prompted Duncan and his colleagues to tell Rosenworcel that “the proposal to allow a broadcaster to selectively target only certain geographic areas of their federally licensed service area raises very troubling implications for communities across the country.”
Duncan’s letter elaborates on that belief. “While the hypothetical prospect of a broadcaster using geo-targeting to send specialized content to underserved areas may sound inviting, the reality is not so optimistic,” it reads. “First, those traveling within an area being selectively targeted could easily lose signal at a critical time, especially during weather or other emergencies. Additionally, advertisers will likely want to focus their attention on more affluent communities to the exclusion of rural, frequently less affluent areas.”
This concern, Duncan argues, “is especially plausible given that the substantial costs — an estimated $175,000 for implementation and $65,000 to maintain — would create a powerful incentive to target advertisements to more affluent communities in an attempt to recapture those costs.”
Costs have been largely absent from the ZoneCasting discussion until recently.
With Duncan making his case, he says in the letter, “In this real-world context, the notion of any meaningful amount of original content being offered to any area, but especially underserved areas, is fantasy … We ask for your assurance that you will take these concerns seriously for the sake of the communities we serve, and not take any action that risks our constituents’ access to free, local radio or degrades the public’s access to essential information.”
— With reporting by Rob Dumke
