On Oct 11, 4:40 pm, IBOCcrock wrote:
"NAB gives choice for Sirius-XM: Penalties? or Monopoly?"

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/na...siriusxm-penal...

Any association that would act like this is definately headed down the
toilet - be proud!

"This is the level of schoolyard name calling th eNAB engages in. What
the hell does the merger have to do with the repeaters? Did these
idiots graduate from High School?"

Well, we know of one cock-sucker that didn't...

IBOCcrock wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:40 pm, IBOCcrock wrote:
"NAB gives choice for Sirius-XM: Penalties? or Monopoly?"

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/na...siriusxm-penal...

Any association that would act like this is definately headed down the
toilet - be proud!

"This is the level of schoolyard name calling th eNAB engages in. What
the hell does the merger have to do with the repeaters? Did these
idiots graduate from High School?"

Well, we know of one cock-sucker that didn't...




The interview with Mel Karmazin by Charlie Rose was rerun last night.

He made a good point...NAB's insistence that the Sirius-XM merger be
denied as anticompetitive is actually making the case FOR the merger.
NAB doesn't file on other alternative media. Because they don't see them
as competition. Sirius-XM, they see as serious competition.
Demonstrating that Sirius-XM, if approved, would not be an
anticompetitive move.

I'm not sure that having a single satellite company would be the
best way to go, but NAB, by it's filings against both the merger, and
the operations of the companies independently over the last several
years, really does underscore how much a threat NAB sees in satellite
radio.

Which makes the radio stations that were so eager to take XM money
during the initial medial blitz look like real bonefarts. Every spot
that ran, literally, they sold listeners away.

Only marginally better than listener WLS gave away in the late 60's
and 70's with every FM radio they awarded as prizes.

Back to the point, Karmazin said that terrestrial radio will always
be around, but in a business context, it's a zero growth industry.
Strong, but no growth. And he specifically referred to AM and FM radio
stations.

I have no doubt that AM radio stations are going to have a tough
time in the coming years. But I'm also not inclined to dismiss what
Karmazin says, lightly. Above all else he's a Radio guy. And as a
businessman, he doesn't back losers.

Further, he underscored something presented here. that digital
alternatives to analog audio from broadcasters will be a backward step
for revenues. "Analog," he said, "equates to dollars. Digital equates to
dimes." That digital alternatives to analog broadcasting do not have the
listener support to command decent advertising rates. That every
listener lost by analog radio to digital alternatives represents revenue
lost that cannot be recovered. Even if that listener moves from analog
to digital within the same company, it still represents a loss.

He went on to say that companies HAVE to do this. The audience has
become hooked on digital on-demand services. They want what they want
when they want it, but that for the foreseeable future, there is only
loss in it.

He did make references to a number of digital technologies, in this
statement, including HD radio.