[BC] The costs of going digital
Davis, Steve - SVP
SteveDavis
Tue Jan 17 22:12:56 CST 2006
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:04:41 -0500
> From: Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [BC] The costs of going digital
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060117120226.0940d870 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> For someone with a "lack of financial acumen" the networks I created
> or ran seemed to do pretty well. I checked with my financial acumen
> guy this morning and he's of the opinion employees aren't capital
> expenditures. They're recurring expenses that can't be written off
> over 3 or 5 years.
Your financial acumen guy is of course correct. I wasn't saying that
employees were capital expenditures.
Rich, please accept my apology. I am sorry. I shoudn't have
characterized you as having a "lack of financial acumen". That was a
cheap shot, and I have no idea how much accounting or financial
knowledge you may or may not have. I assumed you were a programming
expert and not a financial expert, and I only meant my remark in the
same spirit in which I presume you meant your assertion, with regard to
me, that "When he becomes a programmer I'll respect his programming
comments as much as I respect his engineering ones."
I don't believe my comments, engineering or otherwise, are deserving of
any more respect than anyone else's, but I have tried to share some
facts that not all on this list may be privy to. However you do make my
point: exactly BECAUSE employees aren't capital expenditures, we can
deduct the FULL COST of an employee that year as an expense when
calculating our income taxes for the year, thus reducing our tax
liability by the full amount of that employee's salary; whereas, we can
only deduct 1/7th, or 1/15th, of most capital expenditures from our
income tax in a given year. So for the purposes of how much money we
actually get to keep (and not give to the government), a capital
expenditure is not as good for us as an outright expense, since that
doesn't reduce our tax liability by nearly as much.
> >So shouldn't we have an alliance, get
> >the infrastructure and programming up first, and THEN
> promote the heck
> >out of it?
>
> I don't agree with restraint of trade.
I also don't agree with restraint of trade! I honestly don't think that
a number of radio station owners and programmers getting together, and
agreeing what to program in each market so that maximum variety of
formats is available to the listeners, is restraint of trade. The
Alliance isn't restraining anyone from doing anything. Membership in
the Alliance is voluntary. And the Alliance doesn't have any intention,
or means, of preventing any non-members from originating any formats
they choose. Members choose to cooperate in the same manner in which
NFL teams choose to divide into the AFC and NFC and conform to certain
rules, to make the competition interesting to the sports enthusiasts.
>
> >There is no bank account with $200 million in it. A portion
> of the $200
> >million is in a commitment to provide non-preemptable
> inventory, and a
> >portion of it is cash.
>
> Thank you. Finally an answer. As expected, it's funny money.
You create programming which is used as a platform to sell advertising.
You truly believe that advertising is worthless? Then I won't be able
to convince you otherwise. Also as I said a portion IS cash. Just
because I don't know how much that portion is, doesn't mean it's
insignificant. It simply means I'm honest, I don't know, and I'm
willing to admit as much.
> Formats I love to malign? Which ones are those?
Sorry. I got the impression you thought terrestrial radio today wasn't
serving the public need, and that the formats we were providing were
insipid. I didn't mean you had an objection to any specific formats.
Rather you didn't seem enamored of the formats, or programming,
terrestrial radio was providing today. I got the feeling that your
position was that the programmers employed by the satellite broadcasting
corporations were somehow more creative than the programmers employed by
the terrestrial broadcasting corporations. Please forgive me if I was
incorrect in coming to this conclusion. Is it your position then that
the formats terrestrial radio is programming today on their analog
channels are serving the public need and that there is no need for
additional formats to be made available on the new outlets that HD2 will
provide?
> I've had a very long run with some great people and done some
> tremendously exciting things. Clearly I've been valued by those
> companies. Mel Karmazin once complimented Rick Buckley on the success
> of the WOR Radio Network. Rick looked at me and responded "It's not
> my network. It's Rich's." I believe he meant it. He gave me virtually
> everything I asked for to make it work. That's not the kind of
> experience that makes one bitter. It makes you respect your boss
> because he respects you. I still consider the people at WOR
> great friends.
I am impressed at what you have been able to accomplish and can only
hope that one day I might accomplish a small measure of what you have
achieved. We are fortunate to have your input and contribution to this
list.
Clearly you and I are not often going to agree. My hope is that both of
us share the same ultimate goal: to keep free terrestrial radio fresh,
relevant and viable into the 21st century. I am involved in
implementing a technical infrastructure that affords free terrestrial
radio broadcasters a "second chance": a means to provide programming
content that is apparently missing in today's offerings, a void which
Satellite radio purports to fill, while still preserving the vibrant
competition and programming that still attracts over 200 million
listeners a week. Engineers like myself cannot do this alone. We can
provide the platform or stage. You and your compatriots have to provide
the performance. I am excited to see what new offerings our creative
programming people can come up with!
Thanks,
Steve Davis
>
> Rich
>
> Rich Wood
> Rich Wood Multimedia
> Phone: 413-303-9084
> FAX: 413-480-0010
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1989 14:15:22 -0500
> From: "RobertM" <robertm at nyc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [BC] Re: Interest in HD gear
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <23D34A7A.292.A8732C at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On 17 Jan 2006 at 12:42, Xmitters at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Maybe the best way for large scale deployment is for the receiver
> > manufacturers to put the HD Radio decoders in receivers and
> make it transparent to the
> > listener so the listener does not have to take any action;
> if HD is present, the receiver
> > will use it. I'm not sure if deployment in cars will help
> other receiver sales because
> > many people still think that the best radio sound is in a
> car, and may not translate the
> > superior performance of HD as being possible in the home.
>
>
> That is how HD radios work. It first acquires the analog and
> show the HD logo and if
> there are additional channels.. Once the signal is fully
> acquired it blends to digital.
> On my radio there is no option to turn this off it just happens.
>
> R
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:48:53 -0800
> From: "ACN" <acn at qwest.net>
> Subject: Re: A different tack .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <003301c61b8e$48771eb0$0300a8c0 at customer7gnnk2>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Oh I agree, Barry. That is my point exactly, education.
>
> Tom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barry Mishkind
> To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:10 AM
> Subject: A different tack .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz
>
>
> Tom,
>
> No ... education is fine. I did not see any education in that
> post. I only saw invective.
>
> Look ... everyone on this list that has a technical background (and
> most everyone who does not) is aware that digital
> transmission as set
> up in the "transition" period has problems. Some are
> solvable in time
> , some are not.
>
> However, there are a lot of companies trying to enhance terrestrial
> broadcasting, with a lot of expenditure. Whether we agree
> or not, we
> have to admit they are trying. (The cynical will merely
> point to the
> "jamming," a real issue, but not one that cannot be
> "handled.") Manufacturers respond to demand. Surely that
> is not bad, is it?
>
> One thing is for sure. If folks simply repeat that the situation is
> not optimal, we get nowhere. Blasting the proponents will
> only cause
> them to retreat from public discourse. Is that what you want? How
> can you educate someone who will not listen to you?
>
> I think Steve Davis has done this list an immeasurable service by
> taking the time to post the material he has. However, I know there
> are others who will not post, because they do not want to (nor have
> the time to) be engaged in an endless debate over the
> things we already know.
>
> Instead of focusing on the problems, repeating them over and over
> (OK, it is useful to be reminded of the problems - want to
> do a top
> ten list of IBOC problems? I'll put up a web page and we
> can direct
> people to it) instead rehashing the same negative thoughts.
>
> What can we do to engage USEFUL conversation? What can we do to
> improve the technology?
>
> How many on this list have petitioned the FCC with some
> solution, as
> opposed to merely being opposed?
>
> There are, after all, at least three positions: Opposed, For, and
> those that are directed to implement the technology and
> want to be educated.
>
> If we chase people like Steve Davis away .. .how will you
> LEARN about
> digital radio? How will you know what can be done and is
> being done
> to help terrestrial radio meet the MANY challenges in this
> current time.
>
> The disconnects are obvious. The mistakes made in the past are
> apparent. Can't we move ahead and be constructive - after all that
> is what radio people are .... creative, constructive. Those who
> merely want to bellyache really don't add anything to the lives of
> those that have to produce.
>
> Right or wrong. Good or bad. Digital is here. Cheap and easy pot
> shots do not help.
>
> Having the ear of a Steve Davis, a Michael Bergman, even some
> programmers and FCC folks who lurk, is a positive. Should we drive
> them away, so we can continue to note what we know - there are
> problems? Or should we continue to engage these folks in sincere,
> productive discussion that will help our stations and the industry?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.19/231 - Release
> Date: 1/16/2006
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 28
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:08:53 -0600
> From: "JYRussell at academicplanet.com" <jyrussell at academicplanet.com>
> Subject: Re: A different tack .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <004301c61b91$144b87e0$62e2bed8 at UNKNOWN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> F'rinstance... with all the monies that fly around, and all
> the people
> involved... one thing I've not heard of or seen here yet...
> is how the
> IBOC/HD impementation could be moved along a bit with
> "loaner" equipment.
> Ha ha you say. While I don't grasp *all* of the legal ends
> of this stuff, I
> am bright enough to know that some of the entities that are
> interested in
> making HD or IBOC have some rather deep pockets.
> SO... as an analogy...
>
> If satellite companies can afford to have BUCHES of
> hardware out on loan,
> lease, barter, whatever... why could some of that thinking
> not be applied to
> this digital issue on the more terrestrial level? Mom & Pop
> can't afford
> all the hardware, the test-n-tune, antennae, Tx
> modifications... so... what
> if one company got busy, and set up it's own coast - to -
> IBOC/HD stuff...
> then leased/loaned/sold the recievers to the users? Like
> Jeff Weltons ideas
> about the removable thumb drive, or whatever... Joe Q. Public
> only has to
> percieve a small piece of consistant and improved value to be
> "hooked".
>
> Everybody says there aren't enough receivers out there.
> Everybody talks about how to design good ones. If you
> designed your entire
> TX network, and the recievers that gave your listeners the sound you
> wanted... your investment would be pretty big... but all the
> folks that
> stayed with you as listeners would NOT hear the IBUzzz on the
> analog end.
>
> We can already sell WeatherRadios, and such with our calls
> on them... why
> not our own IBOC/HD stuff.??
> Jason
> > However, there are a lot of companies trying to enhance terrestrial
> > broadcasting, with a lot of expenditure. Whether we agree
> or not, we have
> > to admit they are trying. (The cynical will merely point to
> the "jamming,"
> > a real issue, but not one that cannot be "handled.") Manufacturers
> > respond to demand. Surely that is not bad, is it?
> >
> > One thing is for sure. If folks simply repeat that the
> situation is not
> > optimal, we get nowhere.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 29
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:10:36 -0600
> From: "SHAFFER, RANDY L" <RandyShaffer at ClearChannel.com>
> Subject: [BC] The HD Alliance is a good idea, but...
> To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID:
>
> <C90F053A72A2EA43AAA13DF6F429241F125A92 at CCUMAIL11.usa.ccu.clea
> rchannel.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Rich wrote -
>
> >Except for PBS, most
> >DTV broadcasters are doing what IBUZ will do, dump their doppler
> >radar on the second channel and walk away.
>
> Well that may be true in some markets.
> This DTV market (Top 50) had ABC News Now on the ABC
> affiliate, which was great for those of us w/o cable, then
> they switched to a weather channel as did the NBC affiliate.
> PBS stood alone with their local programming on 33-1, PBS net
> on 33-2 and PBS-HD on 33-3. They dropped 33-2 last year. This
> year they dropped 33-1 and made 33-3 their local programming.
> The PBS HD channel disappeared. PBS is offering nothing new
> on their digital tier. SInce I don't have cable or DBS and
> probably never will, I was really excited about the program
> choices that were being offered. Well, I guess 2 channels of
> weather are better than nothing.
>
> Randy Shaffer
> Harrisburg, PA
> (viewer mode off)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 30
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:54:31 -0800
> From: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
> Subject: Re: A different tack .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID: <635kaqs3f5728S03.1137524071 at uwdvg003.cms.usa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I personally find this whole IBOC discussion interesting and
> worthwhile.
> -D
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:13:17 AM PST
> From: Barry Mishkind <barry at oldradio.com>
> To: Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Subject: A different tack .... was: [BC] One other IBUZ zzz
>
> Tom,
>
> No ... education is fine. I did not see any education in that
> post. I only saw invective.
>
> Look ... everyone on this list that has a technical background (and
> most everyone who does not) is aware that digital transmission as set
> up in the "transition" period has problems. Some are solvable in time
> , some are not.
>
> However, there are a lot of companies trying to enhance terrestrial
> broadcasting, with a lot of expenditure. Whether we agree or not, we
> have to admit they are trying. (The cynical will merely point to the
> "jamming," a real issue, but not one that cannot be
> "handled.") Manufacturers respond to demand. Surely that is
> not bad, is it?
>
> One thing is for sure. If folks simply repeat that the situation is
> not optimal, we get nowhere. Blasting the proponents will only cause
> them to retreat from public discourse. Is that what you want? How
> can you educate someone who will not listen to you?
>
> I think Steve Davis has done this list an immeasurable service by
> taking the time to post the material he has. However, I know there
> are others who will not post, because they do not want to (nor have
> the time to) be engaged in an endless debate over the things
> we already know.
>
> Instead of focusing on the problems, repeating them over and over
> (OK, it is useful to be reminded of the problems - want to do a top
> ten list of IBOC problems? I'll put up a web page and we can direct
> people to it) instead rehashing the same negative thoughts.
>
> What can we do to engage USEFUL conversation? What can we do to
> improve the technology?
>
> How many on this list have petitioned the FCC with some solution, as
> opposed to merely being opposed?
>
> There are, after all, at least three positions: Opposed, For, and
> those that are directed to implement the technology and want
> to be educated.
>
> If we chase people like Steve Davis away .. .how will you LEARN about
> digital radio? How will you know what can be done and is being done
> to help terrestrial radio meet the MANY challenges in this
> current time.
>
> The disconnects are obvious. The mistakes made in the past are
> apparent. Can't we move ahead and be constructive - after all that
> is what radio people are .... creative, constructive. Those who
> merely want to bellyache really don't add anything to the lives of
> those that have to produce.
>
> Right or wrong. Good or bad. Digital is here. Cheap and easy pot
> shots do not help.
>
> Having the ear of a Steve Davis, a Michael Bergman, even some
> programmers and FCC folks who lurk, is a positive. Should we drive
> them away, so we can continue to note what we know - there are
> problems? Or should we continue to engage these folks in sincere,
> productive discussion that will help our stations and the industry?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> For changes in service, please click on
>
> Broadcast mailing list
> Broadcast at radiolists.net
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/broadcast
>
>
>
> End of Broadcast Digest, Vol 12, Issue 48
> *****************************************
>
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list