[Ucrn] [Fwd: Re: [CBI] CRB will rehear webcasting rates]

[Sandra Wasson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CBI] CRB will rehear webcasting rates

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:29:15 -0500
From: Joel R. Willer <willer at KXUL.COM>
Reply-To: College Broadcasters, Inc <CBI at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Organization: University of Louisiana at Monroe
To: CBI at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

>From The Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) Listserv>>

>From The Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI) Listserv>>

> From: College Broadcasters, Inc [mailto:CBI at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
> Of WBER
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:48 PM
> To: CBI at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CBI] CRB will rehear webcasting rates
> 
> I am still holding out hope that they change the data rules also.
> I'd rather pay more money than track everything the way they want.

Frankly, even if a rehearing is granted, I'd be surprised if the CRJs would
dive into changing recordkeeping requirements as part of the rate setting
determination, based on their opinion in the determination:

"In any event, because our recordkeeping regulations are interim and not
final, there is ample opportunity to again address the Services' costs in a
future rulemaking. The ability to influence and adjust the costs of
recordkeeping is far more direct in that context than this rate
determination proceeding and is more properly handled there."

In short, they don't want to mix the rate setting proceeding with the
setting of recordkeeping regulations.

They instead have taken the position that, if once implemented recordkeeping
regulations prove to be cost prohibitive, the regulations can be adjusted
later.  It's small comfort that the judges might reconsider their decision
only after many noncommercial educational stations are driven away from
Webcasting.

CBI, as I'm sure everyone on this list would agree, has argued that the cost
of complying with recordkeeping requirements diminishes the value of the
statutory license.  Other parties in the arbitration raised the same issue.
Yet, the judges wrote, "The costs of recordkeeping to both sides did not
influence our determination of royalty rates in this proceeding, nor are we
choosing to amend our existing recordkeeping regulations."

They dismissed the testimony by CBI and others because, "The testimony
presented by the Services as to the costs associated with recordkeeping was
vague and unsubstantiated."  They missed the fact that noncommercial
Webcasters previously operating under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act
have been exempted from recordkeeping, so for us coming up with concrete
costs would be impossible.  We can't show firm costs for something that
hasn't happened and for which systems have not been developed.

--
Joel R. Willer
Assistant Professor of Mass Communications
General Manager, KXUL(FM)
University of Louisiana at Monroe
http://ulm.edu/~willer     http://kxul.com

*************************************************************************
Renew your membership today at askcbi.org!  Membership means discounts 
at the regional convention in L.A., and the Spring Convention in the Big 
Apple.  You also receive FREE entries into the CBI student production 
awards!  For information see our web site, WWW.askcbi.org.


-- 
Sandra Wasson
General Manager
KALX 90.7 FM
UC Berkeley
510-642-1111