Freedom is a radio station that's out of this world
 

The Sunday Times - Comment

May 01, 2005
Andrew Sullivan

One by one America's media giants are beginning to teeter. Newspapers are
haemorrhaging readers. The networks are reeling from cable television.
Network news is staggering towards extinction, as its anchors retire or
discredit themselves. Institutions such as The New York Times have been
damaged by scandal and bias. The news weeklies are just as likely to run
cover stories on health or money than the hard stories of the day.

Now the last powerful, free-at-use medium that America has left is also on
the ropes.

I'm talking about radio. In a country where millions spend countless hours
in cars or trucks, radio has always been powerful. It has powered America's
vibrant music industry; it helped pioneer the conservative politics of the
past two decades; publicly funded radio is extremely dear to the blue-state
liberals, who trust it as Radio 4 is prized by middle England.

But just as blogs and cable news decimated newspapers and network
television, so radio is now in the grip of the next, big, decentralising,
narrow-casting revolution.

The reason? Satellite radio - digital-quality programming beamed to
receivers from outer space. For a small subscription fee - about £7 a
month - Americans can now receive more than 100 stations of limitless,
commercial-free radio for any taste.

You buy a tiny receiver, plug it into your car or home stereo, and get news,
music, sports, talk in a dizzying variety, bypassing the entire broadcasting
network that covered America for the better part of a century.

The growth of satellite radio is faster than any new medium in history. From
zero in 2001, the total subscriber list is projected to reach 8m by the end
of this year. In the first three months of 2005, XM satellite radio, the
biggest of the handful of new companies, added 540,000 new subscribers. Its
revenue grew 140% over the previous year. Remember, listeners are paying for
something that is essentially already available for free.

Last week, in a sign of the maturity of the new medium, America's domestic
goddess Martha Stewart signed on for a 24-hour Martha channel.

The legendary "shock jock" radio host, Howard Stern, recently announced his
intention to kiss regular radio goodbye in favour of a five-year $500m
(£261m) contract to go to Sirius, the second-ranking satellite service.

Why is this happening? Consolidation in the regular radio market has led to
huge companies squeezing more ad revenue and commercial time out of existing
formats. And who wants to listen to endless, screechy radio ads on the
motorway? But satellite radio is commercial-free. It's also free of
censorship in an increasingly puritanical America.
Stern, for example, was regularly fined for indecency by the newly
aggressive Republican-led Federal Communications Commission. Radio stars
Opie and Anthony - known for outrageous stunts such as recording sex in
churches - couldn't keep paying the government fines their smut brought on
them.

Satellite radio gets around political censorship and disciplining. Because
it's not on general airwaves, subscribers get what they want, and public
decency is preserved.

Satellite radio more accurately caters to contemporary culture. Radio has
always been an intimate medium. Broadcasting in an increasingly diverse and
fractured culture means reaching a lowest common denominator that renders
programmes bland or too commercial or simply too eclectic for increasingly
picky listeners. The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree.

You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives, liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

Interested in English football? On Sirius, you could have listened in Los
Angeles or Chicago to the Bolton v Chelsea match or Southampton v Norwich.
The entire baseball season is available, along with basketball and American
football.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...592845,00.html

"Mike Terry" wrote:

The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree. You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives, liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

The writer seems to think there is some sort of openness to satellite
radio; not that it is all under the control of two corporations. Yet, he
contends that "consolidation in the radio industry" is what's wrong with
terrestrial radio.

He "seems to think." In other words, he didn't say it. You made it up.
What Sullivan *did* say about commercial radio is that it is commercial-laden,
censored, lowest-common-denominator, and that satellite radio offers its
subscribers more varied listening options. And I don't hear you denying it.

Satellite radio's customer is the subscriber, while commercial radio's
customer is the advertiser. Satellite radio competes with the internet and hard
media as an entertainment and information source. Terrestrial commercial radio
competes with billboards as a purchase-influencing spin-for-hire medium.

Even with just one source for broadband, I can use Time Warner to criticize
Time Warner, but I can't use terrestrial radio to criticize terrestrial radio.
So anybody who fixates on a medium's ownership entities rather than the choices
it offers will be frustrated by the facts in evidence. Sullivan didn't do this;
he is a prominent libertarian-conservative. You did, and attempted to put the
words in his mouth.

Jerome

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
...
"Mike Terry" wrote:

The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree. You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives,
liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

The writer seems to think there is some sort of openness to satellite
radio; not that it is all under the control of two corporations. Yet, he
contends that "consolidation in the radio industry" is what's wrong with
terrestrial radio.

"Cooperstown.Net" wrote:

So anybody who fixates on a medium's ownership entities rather than the choices
it offers will be frustrated by the facts in evidence. Sullivan didn't do this;
he is a prominent libertarian-conservative. You did, and attempted to put the
words in his mouth.

Actually, I was trying to look beyond his proselytizing. I used his own
phrase as a reference point.

If you think ownership doesn't matter, well... dream on, silly dreamer.

"Stern, for example, was regularly fined for indecency by the newly
aggressive Republican-led Federal Communications Commission"

Stern was not fined, but his employer WAS fined, but in past
administrations, the radio biz regarded the fines as a cost of doing
business.

This is not unlike a guy who likes to drive his Lamborghini on the highway
at 100 mph or through residential neighborhoods at 50. He does not view
the tickets as societal sanctions but part of the cost of owning the car.
Ditto his DUIs if he has a habit of imbibing.

". Radio stars Opie and Anthony - known for outrageous stunts such as
recording sex in churches - couldn't keep paying the government fines their
smut brought on
them."

The O&A church stunt probably was going to end up with license action, and
not nominal (to the broadcaster) fines. Which is why they were immediately
kicked out of their gigs. The president of the beer company that
sponsored the stunt also found his company in a horrendous public relations
situation.

Satellite radio is grand. It frees the publicly owned airwaves from this
stuff. Everyone has recognized that there is still a market for this
trash radio. So, they can go out there and charge for it, and if someone
pays for it, OK with me. Just don't make me PAY for it.

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
Actually, I was trying to look beyond his proselytizing. I used his own
phrase as a reference point.

If you think ownership doesn't matter, well... dream on, silly dreamer.

Thanks for the "if", Kim. I didn't say this and don't believe it.
Ownership matters. But business model matters more, including the ability to
design and subsidize proprietary receivers. The delivery system matters more
because it permits the aggregation of niche tastes. The absence of content
regulation, particularly television-style coerced, non-marketplace, nabcaster
carriage is hugely important. This enables satellite radio to build a secular,
pro-liberty constituency that in time will let it win the battle against
terrestrial for full First Amendment rights.

But ownership is in there somewhere. Regs chose duopoly rather than
monopoly for satellite radio, and chose well.

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings the best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

Jerome

Cooperstown.Net wrote:

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings the best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

You have a very odd definition of hometown.

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

At any rate, "beamed down from a bird in orbit thousands of miles above Earth"
doesn't qualify as hometown radio as far as I'm concerned.

And you forget who owns the satellite companies... "terrestrial media elites."
At least here in the US. (OK, that's true of XM for sure... not sure about
Sirius's corporate pedigree, but the people in charge are from large
communications companies...)

--
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"

In article ,
Steve Sobol wrote:
I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

Correction: Clear Channel no longer owns an attributable stake in XM.
They never owned as much as 25% in any case. (XM's headquarters are
in Washington, BTW.) The biggest owner of XM is Rupert Murdoch's
DIRECTV Group.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Cooperstown.Net wrote:

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings the
best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in
America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential
makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

You have a very odd definition of hometown.

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate
headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

At any rate, "beamed down from a bird in orbit thousands of miles above
Earth"
doesn't qualify as hometown radio as far as I'm concerned.

And you forget who owns the satellite companies... "terrestrial media
elites."
At least here in the US. (OK, that's true of XM for sure... not sure about
Sirius's corporate pedigree, but the people in charge are from large
communications companies...)

Steve,

Clear now has less than 1% of XM; they never were more than 5% to 6% before
the dilution of equity due to the constant issuance of more stock to pay for
the huge losses. No other media company has any position in XM... the
biggest players are car manufacturers and mutual funds.

Correction... should have said "radio company" and not "media company."

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Cooperstown.Net wrote:

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings
the
best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in
America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential
makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

You have a very odd definition of hometown.

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate
headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

At any rate, "beamed down from a bird in orbit thousands of miles above
Earth"
doesn't qualify as hometown radio as far as I'm concerned.

And you forget who owns the satellite companies... "terrestrial media
elites."
At least here in the US. (OK, that's true of XM for sure... not sure
about
Sirius's corporate pedigree, but the people in charge are from large
communications companies...)

Steve,

Clear now has less than 1% of XM; they never were more than 5% to 6%
before
the dilution of equity due to the constant issuance of more stock to pay
for
the huge losses. No other media company has any position in XM... the
biggest players are car manufacturers and mutual funds.

Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article ,
Steve Sobol wrote:

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.


Correction: Clear Channel no longer owns an attributable stake in XM.
They never owned as much as 25% in any case. (XM's headquarters are
in Washington, BTW.) The biggest owner of XM is Rupert Murdoch's
DIRECTV Group.

Thanks; ok, details are slightly off, but the concept is still the same.
Perhaps even more so in Murdoch's case. :)


--
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"

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article ,
Steve Sobol wrote:

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate
headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.


Correction: Clear Channel no longer owns an attributable stake in XM.
They never owned as much as 25% in any case. (XM's headquarters are
in Washington, BTW.) The biggest owner of XM is Rupert Murdoch's
DIRECTV Group.

Thanks; ok, details are slightly off, but the concept is still the same.
Perhaps even more so in Murdoch's case. :)

Even the Hughes ownership, which started at over 20%, which transferred to
DirecTV, was sold a year ago.

DirecTV Sells XM Stake

By TSC Staff
3/26/2004 10:02 AM EST



Shares of XM Satellite Radio (XMSR:Nasdaq - news - research) slipped Friday
after longtime backer DirecTV (DTV:NYSE - news - research) sold its stake.


DirecTV raised $230 million Friday by selling the public 9 million shares in
the fast-growing Washington, D.C., satellite radio broadcaster, XM said in a
Friday morning press release. DirecTV, which until this year was a General
Motors (GM:NYSE - news - research) unit called Hughes Electronics, was an
early investor in XM and remained its largest shareholder through January,
according to Yahoo! Finance.

The investment was surely a profitable one for DirecTV, which recently came
under the control of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS:NYSE - news -
research) . After all, XM shares posted a staggering 1,000% gain last year
as investors bought into its promise of early leadership in a fast-growing
tech niche. At the end of 2002, before the XM rally began in earnest, GM and
its affiliates held nearly 20% of the company. .

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if DirecTV or Clear owned a bunch of
XM, but they don't:

DirecTV Sells XM Stake -- 3/26/2004 10:02 AM EST
.....investment was surely a profitable one for DirecTV,...XM shares posted a
staggering 1,000% gain last year...
http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/ma.../10150897.html

This angle of attack appears to be going noplace. So I expect we'll shortly
be reminded that Karmazin runs Sirius and that both providers are teamed with
good terrestrial radio people.

It's the absence of a coinbox that has turned terrestrial into a wasteland,
not "corporate greed."

Jerome

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article ,
Steve Sobol wrote:

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.


Correction: Clear Channel no longer owns an attributable stake in XM.
They never owned as much as 25% in any case. (XM's headquarters are
in Washington, BTW.) The biggest owner of XM is Rupert Murdoch's
DIRECTV Group.

Thanks; ok, details are slightly off, but the concept is still the same.
Perhaps even more so in Murdoch's case. :)

Cooperstown.Net wrote:

This angle of attack appears to be going noplace. So I expect we'll shortly
be reminded that Karmazin runs Sirius and that both providers are teamed with
good terrestrial radio people.

Look, folks, perhaps I shouldn't have named names. Especially since I don't
follow the satellite radio business as closely as I could. Especially,
especially since there are people who are much more familiar with the players
involved than I am. :)

However, if y'all really want to argue that satellite radio is "hometown"
radio, I'll argue until my dying day that it's not. It is the diametric
OPPOSITE of hometown radio. "Hometown" implies a broadcast outlet directing its
programming at an audience in the same geographical area.

Jerome, THAT is the point I was trying to make (and apparently failed to make).

For us ("us" including you, if I recall correctly) to have complained for years
about industry consolidation and the homogenization of radio outlets across the
USA, and then for you to tout satellite as "hometown" programming, is beyond my
comprehension, and I'm shocked to hear such a thing from any of the regulars,
ESPECIALLY you.

Maybe I'm just confused. Perhaps you could clarify your statement.

**SJS

--
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"

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...

However, if y'all really want to argue that satellite radio is "hometown"
radio, I'll argue until my dying day that it's not. It is the diametric
OPPOSITE of hometown radio. "Hometown" implies a broadcast outlet
directing its
programming at an audience in the same geographical area.


And... we have the only two users of satellite radio spectrum with nearly
300 channels controlled by 2 companies. Hometown? Bzzt. Independent? Bzzzt.
Anti-consolidation? Bzzzzt.

Steve, I'm sure you've confused me with another poster. I've never pined
for a different and supposedly golden era of radio with council meetings, lost
puppies and local artists. These were Hendricks and gaffo's themes, not mine.
Consolidation was a theme of others. Payola was a theme of others. Live and
local, a fetish of others. Automated and local is cheaper and works as well on
radio as it does on the web.

My issues are, typically

1) The sheer inefficiency of paying for content through undifferentiated
commercial sponsorship. Not that long ago, the only way for a listener to pay
for radio was to be harangued.
2) NAB's attempts to brake technical progress and its chokehold on the
bandwidth and the fundamental liberties of its competitors
3) If excessive competition were a problem (the Bakersfield principle) the
license prices wouldn't be going up
4) If even more competition eventually forces profitability and license
prices down, terrestrial radio would survive nonetheless, and might even find it
necessary to invest in local content to differentiate and compete.

Am I a little nostalgic for Wm. B Williams, Shep, Carlton Fredericks, Brad
Crandall, Bill Watson, BAI and Monitor? Of course. What thinking listener
doesn't have a set of names like these, exemplifying calm, worldliness,
spontaneity and respect. But they were rarities even then, they can't be
regulated back into existence, and I probably wouldn't have time for them today.
The golden era of radio is the one we're in, with satellite, internet and
time-shifting through Winamp, CD burning and flash memory. As dismal as AM and
FM became, the marketplace found other ways to meet listener demand. Good radio
people may have landed out on their ear, but we listeners definitely got our
portion.

What makes Satellite radio hometown? Well, when NAB does its annual brag
about how many artists and songs terrestrial radio introduced, its tally
includes about 12,000 signals that any given listener cannot receive. It is
satellite that brings these niche formats to every community in the contiguous
states. A far richer variety in East Jesus, USA than was available in the
biggest markets a few years ago. Each listener is a hometown
subscriber/sponsor; satellite has a name on file, a feedback and accountability
mechanism in place, and a keen awareness of the economic value that listener
represents.

XM is developing digital fountain technology and will be as locally
differentiated as regulators permit it to be. No longer will the information
you need be tied to the music or commercials you despise; it'll be stored in the
background and available at your convenience. Including, perhaps, a traffic
report from terrestrial, and real-time room availabilities from the local
motels. Onscreen or via synthesized voice. NAB will have a fit.

I'll admit there's a disigenuous element to the "hometown" crack, though I
stand by it. I'm actually on very friendly terms with most of the broadcasters
in this community. Jim and Jim, the former owners of one group. Cindy and Jen,
the voice talent. George, the new manager. Jan, owner of the other group.
Doug and Tracy on the air. Known 'em and liked 'em for years. But I don't
listen. Home is where the eardrums are.

Jerome


"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Cooperstown.Net wrote:

This angle of attack appears to be going noplace. So I expect we'll
shortly
be reminded that Karmazin runs Sirius and that both providers are teamed
with
good terrestrial radio people.

Look, folks, perhaps I shouldn't have named names. Especially since I don't
follow the satellite radio business as closely as I could. Especially,
especially since there are people who are much more familiar with the players
involved than I am. :)

However, if y'all really want to argue that satellite radio is "hometown"
radio, I'll argue until my dying day that it's not. It is the diametric
OPPOSITE of hometown radio. "Hometown" implies a broadcast outlet directing
its
programming at an audience in the same geographical area.

Jerome, THAT is the point I was trying to make (and apparently failed to
make).

For us ("us" including you, if I recall correctly) to have complained for
years
about industry consolidation and the homogenization of radio outlets across
the
USA, and then for you to tout satellite as "hometown" programming, is beyond
my
comprehension, and I'm shocked to hear such a thing from any of the regulars,
ESPECIALLY you.

Maybe I'm just confused. Perhaps you could clarify your statement.

**SJS

--
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"

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...

However, if y'all really want to argue that satellite radio is "hometown"
radio, I'll argue until my dying day that it's not. It is the diametric
OPPOSITE of hometown radio. "Hometown" implies a broadcast outlet
directing its
programming at an audience in the same geographical area.


And... we have the only two users of satellite radio spectrum with nearly
300 channels controlled by 2 companies. Hometown? Bzzt. Independent? Bzzzt.
Anti-consolidation? Bzzzzt.



So, are you saying that anyone who wants to be available by
satellite, they should launch their own bird and build their own earth
stations and control systems? WSM in Nashville is on Sirius, as well as
a internet stream. Are you telling me they are controlling WSM's
programming? That WSM isn't a "Local" station for that area of
Tennessee? I don't have a Sirius radio, but I have listened to WSM on
it at a retail store. There is plenty of room for more channels, but
why bother if the local station doesn't play what you want to hear?
There are several local "Country music" stations that truly stink. Some
of their staff have told me they would rather be playing heavy metal,
and its reflected in their on air personalities.

A local low [power AM radio station does a one hour show about
veterans. Its the only thing I listen to on a regular basis.

The one time I needed to listen to them for more than a few minutes
was during the hurricanes that hit Ocala last year. Guess what? A
couple studios had backup power, but their transmitter didn't. Other
local stations had power for the transmitter, but not the studio, so I
had to try to listen to Tampa, Jacksonville or Orlando which had no
local news. Local radio around here is already dead, but no one has
bothered to tell them.


--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Cooperstown.Net wrote:

[ a lot of good stuff... snipped... ]

What makes Satellite radio hometown? Well, when NAB does its annual brag
about how many artists and songs terrestrial radio introduced, its tally
includes about 12,000 signals that any given listener cannot receive. It is
satellite that brings these niche formats to every community in the contiguous
states.

Which, by definition, makes it NOT HOMETOWN. *EVERY COMMUNITY* in the lower 48,
right? My original point was that if I'm in Apple Valley, there are a bunch of
LOCAL radio stations; a half-dozen owned and operated by Clear Channel, and
another (about) ten or so owned by independents. Infinity is up here, but their
only outlet simulcasts a country station down the hill, so they don't count,
nor does the smaller broadcaster using 92.7 to simulcast their signal on 92.7
out of Ventura County, a few hours away.

Someone programming for a nationwide audience is NOT programming specifically
for my neck of the woods and thus is NOT providing hometown programming.

XM is developing digital fountain technology and will be as locally
differentiated as regulators permit it to be.

Very cool. But they're NOT hometown. "hometown" generally means "originating
locally" as well as "serving the local market."

I love listening to Alice Cooper, but he's not local... he's syndicated out of
Phoenix (IIRC). Same can be said for Bob and Tom, who are on the station that
Cooper is on, in the mornings. I love Bob and Tom too. But they're not
providing hometown content.

I can tune to 92.7 and hear about traffic coming from Los Angeles up through
the Valley on Interstate 405 in the afternoon, if I want to, but I'd rather
tune to one of the CC stations and hear local traffic reports...

--
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"

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

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.

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.

Jerome

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Cooperstown.Net wrote:

[ a lot of good stuff... snipped... ]

What makes Satellite radio hometown? Well, when NAB does its annual
brag
about how many artists and songs terrestrial radio introduced, its tally
includes about 12,000 signals that any given listener cannot receive. It is
satellite that brings these niche formats to every community in the
contiguous
states.

Which, by definition, makes it NOT HOMETOWN. *EVERY COMMUNITY* in the lower
48,
right? My original point was that if I'm in Apple Valley, there are a bunch of
LOCAL radio stations; a half-dozen owned and operated by Clear Channel, and
another (about) ten or so owned by independents. Infinity is up here, but
their
only outlet simulcasts a country station down the hill, so they don't count,
nor does the smaller broadcaster using 92.7 to simulcast their signal on 92.7
out of Ventura County, a few hours away.

Someone programming for a nationwide audience is NOT programming specifically
for my neck of the woods and thus is NOT providing hometown programming.

XM is developing digital fountain technology and will be as locally
differentiated as regulators permit it to be.

Very cool. But they're NOT hometown. "hometown" generally means "originating
locally" as well as "serving the local market."

I love listening to Alice Cooper, but he's not local... he's syndicated out of
Phoenix (IIRC). Same can be said for Bob and Tom, who are on the station that
Cooper is on, in the mornings. I love Bob and Tom too. But they're not
providing hometown content.

I can tune to 92.7 and hear about traffic coming from Los Angeles up through
the Valley on Interstate 405 in the afternoon, if I want to, but I'd rather
tune to one of the CC stations and hear local traffic reports...

--
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"

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"