[BC] Should terrestrial broadcasters embrace satellite broadcasters?

[Rich Wood]

------ At 01:34 PM 3/30/2007, Barry Mishkind wrote: -------

>And, before you comment, consider this: many, many times when a 
>trade organization - and its puppets - squeal the loudest against 
>something (the potential satellite merger), it often indicates that 
>the "something" is a good idea.

Understand that much of what's on terrestrial radio is also on 
satellite. Satellite is such a threat that satellite programming is 
now being repurposed for terrestrial. Opie and Anthony, for example, 
are back on the ground with an FCC pleasing special hour(s) for the 
folks who kicked them off in the first place. It seems to have sunk 
in that terrestrial radio can offer huge audiences even in its death 
throes than satellite can on a perfect day.

 From listening to Mel Karmazin at government hearings pitch tiered 
services that won't cost as much as two current services I have 
visions of cable-like rats nests of "options" that makes you take 19 
channels you don't want to get 1 you do.

It makes the bottom line much better and skirts the issue of higher 
subscription rates because the subscriber makes the decision. With no 
receiver capable of receiving both services I'm finding it hard to 
imagine squashing 300+ channels on a single system. This is going to 
be fascinating to watch. Even more fascinating will be watching the 
NAB represent its constituents.

Rich