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

[Rich Wood]

------ At 09:17 AM 10/5/2005, Mike McCarthy wrote: -------

>What CC is doing is fighting the FCC as well as the satellite and 
>CELLULAR providers from:
>
>1)Locally targeted broadcast (pushed) content on auctioned PCS 
>spectrum at 2Ghz as well as new re-allocated spectrum above 700 Mhz.
>2) XM and Sirius from providing the same local targeted content.
>
>Neither have the myriad of compulsory local community of license and 
>EAS requirements that all Part 73 and some Part 74 licensees have 
>placed upon them by regulation. To that end, their costs of doing 
>business places them at an unfair advantage over terrestrial broadcasters.

OK. Will CC be happy if the FCC applies those regulations to SIRIUS 
and XM? I agree. Let them do localized programming under the same 
terms as terrestrial. Level the playing field. Will it increase CC's 
income by 13%? Have the satellite companies no infrastructure costs? 
Do you suppose the launching of satellites is as expensive as raising 
towers? With IBUZ CC will have 2400 stations, possibly more - or, 
they'll be wiped out by interference. We all take risks. If IBUZ is 
the salvation of broadcasting all will be well in River City very 
soon. Why spend all that money on additional stations when all 
they'll have to pay are licensing fees?

Have the cell companies no fixed costs? If they're using auctioned 
frequencies, didn't they pay a fortune for them? It would seem fair 
to apply a licensing fee for the spectrum CC uses. Level the playing field.

This sounds strangely like Wal-Mart petitioning the government to 
prevent the Dollar store from opening up the street because it might 
have an impact on their stock price.

I wonder who has the most money to spend on politicians. That's 
what's going to make things happen.

Rich