The development of radio industry in the USA was accompanied by the introduction strict measures concerning the regulation of the development of the industry by the state, namely by the Federal Communication Commission. The latter provides license to broadcasters and, thus, is able to influence the development of the market. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that the state, by means of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) attempted to limit the number of companies operating in the industry. In such a situation, the state assisted to the development of oligopoly in the radio industry of the USA, which can potentially outgrow into monopoly. At the same time, such a transition from oligopoly to monopoly will be possible only on the condition of the state support of such market transformation. At the moment, the FCC and the state are apparently unwilling to get the radio market rid of major competitors and maintain the existing oligopoly, which, in all probability, meets strategic interests of the state because it proves beyond a doubt that it is easier for the FCC to control or influence a few market players rather than regulating a large amount of small radio broadcasting companies and stations operating nationwide. Hence, the trend to the formation of oligopoly in the radio industry is maintained by the state in its own interests, regardless interests of smaller companies as well as customers. Potentially, such a situation raises a risk of the monopolization of the radio market if the state reregulation of the radio industry is changed.


On analyzing the development of radio industry in the USA, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that initially the market was quite liberal and the competition was consistently higher compared to the present epoch due to the larger amount of small radio stations and broadcasting companies operating in the market. In fact, the radio market developed in accordance with principles of the open market, until the state regulations had started to grow more and more severe and strict. The state regulation of the radio industry grew stronger in the 1980s and especially in the 1990s (Chomsky, 1997). The interference of the state into the development of the radio market influenced substantially the industry and provoked the consistent improvement of the position of large companies, while small companies were practically doomed to failure and bankruptcy.
At first glance, the state attempted to regulate the radio market for the society’s sake. To put it more precisely, the regulation of radio broadcasting was conducted on the premise of the protection of public interests, moral as well as national interests. However, efforts of the state to optimize the development of the radio industry rather led to the development of the oligopoly than to the consistent, qualitative improvement of the radio industry (Klein, 2000). In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that the state regulation changed the balance of powers in the radio market putting large companies into an advantageous position compared to small companies.
The regulation of the radio market occurred and still occurs via the FCC, which provides radio broadcasters with licenses, while if a company does not meet standards established by the FCC it has no chance to get the license and, thus, it falls to bankruptcy or it has to abandon the radio market. Ironically, the FCC regulations, which have led to pushing small companies out of the radio market in the USA, were initially introduced to overcome the financial crisis which affected the radio industry in the 1980s (Klein, 2000). The decline of the radio industry and slow down of its financial progress stimulated the FCC to undertake measure to revive the market and radio industry.
However, measures undertaken by the FCC were highly controversial. On the one hand, the FCC liberalized the market since it loosened its regulations on the amount of operations allowed within the market. In such a way, companies operating in the radio industry got larger opportunities to grow nationwide that naturally led to the formation of a few leading companies in the USA which gain the larger share of the national radio market. at the same time, such a decision of the FCC seemed to be logical taking into consideration the fact that in the 1990s more than a half radio companies were losing money (Klein, 2000). In such a situation, the liberalization of the market could stimulate the economic revival by means of the growth of radio companies as well as by means of mergers and acquisitions which also contributed to the formation of large and influential companies operating nationwide.
On the other hand, such measures did not really imply the absolutely fair competition because a priori smaller companies turned out to be in a disadvantageous position. In fact, the FCC regulations implies the loosening of regulations concerning the amount of operations within the market, which created favorable conditions for the growth of companies and gaining new markets or larger share of existing markets. At the same time, the FCC introduced restrictions on the size of companies operating in the market. For instance, today, the FCC will not license new stations of less than 100 watts (Bagdikian, 2000). Obviously, this policy reduces the room for new companies to enter the market and launch business in the radio industry.
In such a way, the aforementioned regulations of the FCC led to the formation of oligopoly when a few large companies have ample opportunities to expand their presence nationwide, while small companies and new players do not really have opportunities for entering the market because of the existing regulations. One of the results of such a policy was the disappearance of over 700 station owners, while four companies are in control of over 1000 stations nationwide (Klein, 2000). Hence, the seeming deregulation of the radio industry was accompanied by the introduction of stricter demands concerning licensing of companies depriving small companies of the possibility to stay in the market.
On analyzing the rapid growth of a few companies operating in the radio industry, it would be logical to presuppose that the market steadily slips to the monopolization, but, such a view on the current situation in the national radio market is erroneous. In spite of the fact that the FCC loosened its restrictions concerning the number of operations, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 still allows companies to own an unlimited number of stations nationwide and as many as eight in most markets (Bagdikian, 2000). In such a way, there are still some limits to growth of radio companies operating in the USA. However, it is important to understand the fact that the elimination of the last barrier of eight stations in most markets can lead to the monopolization of the market, but, as long as this restriction persists, the US radio market will tend to oligopoly rather than monopoly because the latter will be impossible due to the presence of a few powerful players in the market.
At the same time, it is obvious that the oligopoly does not contribute to the improvement of the development of the radio industry. In fact, oligopoly makes large companies vulnerable to a profound crisis which can strike the market and they will unable to develop normally in the situation when there are a few competitors. The large number of competitors improves the quality of services and forces companies to improve the marketing strategies to gain the leading position in the market. At the moment, a few leading companies have raised entering barriers to such an extent that they do not have a threat of entering new, serious rivals. On the other hand, it should be said that the oligopoly probably allowed the radio industry to maintain its stable development, in spite of decreasing listenership in the 1990s (Bagdikian, 2000). However, the oligopoly can face a risk of further crisis which can be extremely destructive for the entire industry with a few competitors.
Thus, in conclusion, it should be said that the state tends to the formation of the oligopoly in the radio market of the USA rather than the monopoly. The state, by means of the FCC stimulates the existence of a few large companies in the national market depriving small companies of the possibility to enter the market and revive the competition.

Custom essay writing services ESSAY-911.com. Essays to buy!