[BC] While you are waiting for receivers

[Williams, Chris Albuquerque]

Rich, 
You speak of anti-trust like you know something the rest of us don't. Lets get real there's more anti-trust issues with Wal mart then there is Clear Channel. Thats who your problem is with right? Clear Channel is putting mom and pops out of business ehhh. Then why don't they sell for less money to someone other then a big conglomerate? I personally would love a chance to buy a station and see it run the way I see fit but not when mom and pops would rather sell to CC and others for 3 times what they are worth. I think it is great that broadcasters and software writers have gotten together to develop something before FM is well like AM.....dead. The big guys can afford the money to invest to better advance technology. Mom and pops can't. Simple fact! What do you propose we do to keep FM viable against the on slaught of satellite subscribers? I hear you complain about where the industry is going but I do not see you offering any suggestions on where or how to take it. It's easy to complain about the big guys, because they are big. But reality is because CC and others are adopting technology it may prove to single handedly save terrestial broadcast. And think about the long term.......if there are more choices on FM then don't the programmers have to serve the listener? or are they just gonna fragment the audience and lose more money? Less is more financially hurt CC and helped others that were glad to run more spots and take advertisers money how is that helping? Looks to me your perspective is narrow and anti-technology, then again you most likely are a stock holder in XM and would love to see terrestial radio disappear altogether. 
 
I don't think Ibiquity is the answer but they did meet the FCC's requirement with a system on band that has simultaneous analog operation. The real debate we should be having is why we are still using the 88-108 when there is more efficent spectrum that would be better suited for broadcast?
 
(yet another rant tonight)

________________________________

From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net on behalf of Rich Wood
Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 10:46 PM
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List
Subject: RE: [BC] While you are waiting for receivers



------ At 10:42 PM 12/11/2005, Williams, Chris \(Albuquerque\) wrote: -------

>In my opinion the IBOC alliance is a good step towards serving the
>consumer only problem I see is the big broadcasters will need to
>make a profit to keep shareholders happy.

Why is collecting a group of "usual suspects" from all the Gargantua
Internationals going to help the consumer? Where are the small and
medium sized broadcasters in this wondrous collection? You know, the
folks who might actually know a few of their listeners personally.
You know, the people who are the most likely victims of this
technology. You know, the people who aren't investors in the technlogy.

If this were the oil industry, it might be called a cartel. If this
were GE and Westinghouse, like in the 60's it would be called price
fixing or restraint of trade and forbidden under anti-trust. I think
the street term might be "railroading."

Where's Elliott Spitzer when you need him?

Rich




_______________________________________________
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/