NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?

[Ernie Belanger]

but mike,

this was not a complaint from CC a few years ago.. They bought the property, 
did upgrades and never moaned.

NOW with millions being spend on HD suddenly there is a bitch about the cost 
of technical upgrades.

To say that the gripe is not related to HD when it was never a public gripe 
before HD ties it directly to HD. Further if it is in your business plan and 
it is your decision to invest even a penny into a station you buy  and you 
know that going in... don't buy... and after the fact don't bitch or use 
that as a reason to ask for the ownership cap to be lifted.

Hell after bitching about the cost of technical upgrades etc. One would 
think they would not want to buy more stations only or pour more money into 
technical upgrades so they have more reason to bitch.

SO the HUGE question is....."If ownership of radio stations is such a huge 
burden of Clear Channel and the costs are so high why don't they just go 
back to billboard ownership and performance venue wonership and 
management.???

I've yet to hear about them bitching about all the billboard upgrades they 
will have to make in major markets to create "Jumbotron" billboards with 
content changing every 30 or 60 seconds, like Lamar has done in some 
markets.   :-)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Gideon" <mikegideon at comcast.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?


> Is THIS what you're referring to?
>
>    a.. And, just as important as our programming, free radio invested 
> hundreds of millions of dollars to put state-of-the-art broadcast 
> equipment into all markets - irrespective of size. In some cases, free 
> radio replaced antiquated equipment that represented the best Mom & Pop 
> radio stations could ever afford.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ernie Belanger" <armtx at mhcable.com>
> To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?
>
>
>> Sorry Mike But,
>>
>> The head of CC was quoted by RBR( I believe it was) from a speach in 
>> front of the Freedom Foundation, I believe it was, yesterday.
>>
>> He cited the cutting back of commercials and the high cost of technical 
>> upgrades cutting into profit as  being two of the motivators for asking 
>> the commission or relax the ownership rules.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mike Gideon" <mikegideon at comcast.net>
>> To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?
>>
>>
>>> Nobody at CC is bitching about the cost of HD. We're turning them on 
>>> every day. In fact, we have done more than anyone else.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Ernie Belanger" <armtx at mhcable.com>
>>> To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 1:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT....Re: [BC] Clear Channel Wants More?
>>>
>>>
>>>> If clear channel wants to compete with XM and Sirrus let them send up a 
>>>> bird and start their own Satellite network.
>>>>
>>>> They have far to much dominance, which has been referenced in this 
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> IF they are having a problem competing let them do what everyone else 
>>>> does, adjust to the market. It was their idea to limit commercials, 
>>>> they did, they lost revenue now they are belly aching about it. OH 
>>>> WELL...
>>>>
>>>> They are bitching about having the cost of  the technical upgrade (ie 
>>>> HD Radio) then don't install it. HD is not mandated technology. IF you 
>>>> want to dance pay the piper. Don't bitch about the cost of paying the 
>>>> piper ... if you can't afford it then don't dance.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I personally believe it would be much better for Radio if the 
>>>> Commission lowered the cap vs raising it.  Fewer stations per owner per 
>>>> market makes for more robust competition and ultimately better Radio 
>>>> Product.
>>>>
>>>> And that folks is how you compete with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> Greater Variety of LOCAL content that serves the audience VS a virtual 
>>>> satellite network, voice tracked from God Knows where, which happens to 
>>>> be on  terrestrial stations in almost every market.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>>> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>>> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>>> http://www.radiolists.net/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>> http://www.radiolists.net/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>> http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/