Cooperstown.Net wrote:
Thanks, Steve. I've never known a radio signal to respect a political
boundary.

I'm going to make this point one more time, and then stop contributing to this
thread, because I doubt you're understanding my point and I don't want to get
frustrated.

What you say is true:

Each signal serves a region of a certain size. Satellite serves a
larger community, the contiguous states, and a smaller, as its receivers evolve
into automated control rooms and as the providers refine their feedback
mechanisms.

....but call me a purist, I just don't believe that such broadcasts can be
considered local unless you happen to be listening to a satellite feed of a
station originating in your general area.

You are stretching the definition of "hometown" radio past its breaking point.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Under the scarcity model which terrestrial is fighting vainly to protect,
listeners yield their personal tastes and interests to those of the cohort
desirable to advertisers, wherever they live or travel. And they further yield
a major segment of their attention to ads, funding credits, fund drives and
thinly veiled PR.

This is the same with many satellite formats as it is for terrestrial formats.

Those in the traditionalist camp who find the homogeneity of terrestrial
radio disappointing are accepting as a given a scarcity that has long been
shattered. They are right to consider localism preferable to "same thing
everywhere" formatted programming; but "everything anywhere" is the ideal, and
is more closely approached by satellite. And is in fact achieved by
satellite+internet.

So you actually agree with me that satellite programming isn't local? Because
that's been my whole point all along!

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"