"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:

Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.


Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.

The fact is that knowing where we might be able to get listeners, based on
acceptable signal strength (and thus clarity and ease of reception) is key
to being able to provide the people within that area which some kind of
format or programming that a group of listeners would actually like.

Only if we appeal to a group of listeners can we make the money needed to
sustain any kind of format.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee,"
has an entitlement to a license based on investment in physical plant and
stockholders' expectations.

And where does discussing the signal needed for listeners to be able to
satisfactorily receive a station have any relationship with serving the
listners who can receive us well enough to actually listen?

Because he, like the rest of us, believes an industry licensed "to
serve in the public interest as a public trustee" doesn't get to dismiss
complaints of active listeners as destructive and contemptous when they're
told as listeners they are immaterial and irrelevant.

Aside from fruitcakes, who are most of the complainers to radio stations
(people who object to callers saying "ain't" for example), stations as a
rule pay attention to valid complaints. But that does not have anything to
do with the subject, either.

Posters to Usenet and forums are an exception... they are radio hobbyists or
groupies (not said negatively... as I was such at 12 or 13 myself) who have
more than the average listener's interest in the radio business.

Again, nothing to do with the subject of what signal strength is necessary
for over 95% of listening at home and at work takes place.

Because he, like the rest of us, believes your industry's facts are
manufactured pursuant to goals that have nothing to do with the license
requirement that you "serve in the public interest as a public trustee."

This case is exactly the opposite. We have a great deal of data on where
listening takes place, and we can use it to determine, at the individual
station level, where a station's listening is located so we can concentrate
our efforts on providing appealing programming to some of the people inside
the real listening area.

Since service can be of many kinds, ranging from a pleasant music blend to
get through the day by to active news coverage to being part of ethinc
communities. So knowing who is in the area we can serve is important... and
knowing what that area is is a combination of how far our useful signal goes
and who lives inside that signal.

The facts in this case are not manufactured. You map your listening, book
after book, and then look at what the signal contour is that encompasses
most of them. The contour is pure math (on AM, frequency, power, antenna
efficiency and conductivity) and the listenership comes out of (using LA as
an example) 30,000 annual diaries with several hundred thousand at home and
at work ZIP coded listening instances.

Again, knowing where we can be used determines a large part of how we can be
of service and use to listeners.

That should provide the answer to your inquiry. The question is, why
do you refuse to listen to the the complaints of an entire body of active
and participating radio listeners who believe they have every right to be
heard?

At stations I am involved with, we answer valid listener concerns.
Obviously, the kind of people on this Usenet group are not listeners to any
station I deal with, so this statement of yours is hardly appropriate.


You see...refusing seems to work both ways.

Not really, since your comments have nothing to do with the subject or are
just wrong.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.


And this is where we fundamentally differ. You don't listen.

Read it again, Pancho. See if you can find the hidden meaning. I'll
give you a hint...it's right in front of your face.


You want to know why he refuses to accept your 'facts?' Because he's
not sure you listened to him enough to really understand what his gripe
is.

So far, in the last two years, you've only quoted margins, stock
prices, statistics and agendae. You've argued with everything that's
been put before you, even when it agrees with what you've said.

What you've not done....not one time, is simply listen. And then
address what's been said. Instead of returning to script and quoting
your manufactured facts.

It's like I said a year ago, if you came down and actually
participate in a discussion as a member of the group, instead of
spitting pedantry every time you open your keyboard, you'd probably get
a lot more of your message heard.

But you don't seem to be able to discuss without the pedantic
reliance on corporate speak and what Eric Richards called (with some
accuracy) pseudo-statistical double talk.

Drop the pedantry and oblique insults and see if you don't get
somewhere.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news
David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate. He has, repeatedly, sad that my facts, which are the industry
facts, about where listening takes place, is not true.

Radio stations can not serve much beyond the primary coverage areas due to
many factors such as the inability to physically go out to outlying areas,
the fact that there are local stations in areas that are fringe to us, etc.
So we try to find what we can do to truly serve the audience in the area
where our signal is truly usable.

One of the things mentioned often in this and past exchanges is the usage of
radio stations way outside its primary service area. Even though the FCC
does not require we serve these listeners (and trying to serve their
different interests would cause us to serve less our primary area) there
seems to be a sense of entitlement by some.

Example: KPFK in LA, the Pacifica Foundation station, is grandfathered at
very high power at a very high Height Above Average Terrain. But by FCC
rules, they are only protected from interference to the extent of a
conforming class B FM, 50 kw at 500 feet. Yet they have 110,000 watts at
nearly 3000 feet HAAT. The coverage is many times that of a conforming
station, but only the conforming contour is protected.

A number of years ago, Mexico licensed a co-channel station in Tijuana. It
wiped out the actual useful coverage of KPFK in San Diego. But the Tijuana
station was totally legal since it did not affect the protected contour. Yet
there are posters on many web boards who talk about the Mexican station,
XHLNC, as being a jammer, a pirate, etc.

That's the difference between the facts (the way the FCC deals with
grandfathered facilities and the way XHLNC was licensed) and what some
listeners perceive as their right.

Closer to home, KLVE had a significant fringe audience in Santa Barbara, and
actually showed in the ratings because, at the time there was no FM Spanish
service in the market. But KLVE is also grandfathered, and had no protected
right to the coverage there. A new station was given the adjacent channel,
and wiped KLVE out up there. We had no right to be protected, and the local
community gained in format diversity. At the same time, with the outsider
out of the fight, a local station switched to Spanish, giving local service
to that group... so two groups gained local service while the outside
station no longer had coverage of the area. The listeners, though,
benefitted because KLVE did not serve Santa Barbara. There is no way we
could. It's a 2 hour drive to start. And anything musical the listeners
there might want would not be possible to implement if it meant sacrificing
the ability to satisfy LA listeners. Just putting in phone local service
would have cost thousands a month at the time.

So when it comes to metro stations serving distant or rural or fringe areas
outside their market, there are reasons why this can not be done.
Fortunately, with 14, 421 stations on the air, not including translators,
there is hardly a populated area without terrestrial service and there is
always cable and satellite and web radio, too.

This is why... to better serve the listeners who will listen... that
stations are not interested in fringe areas where the audience does not
generally contribute to local ratings and revenue. Considering that from the
mid-50's till the last study in the mid-90's half of all stations are not
profitable, wasting resources where there is no gain that helps a station
thrive or survive, is not possible and does not make good sense.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.
Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.
We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.

Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate.

Again, you've missed the point, making my point for me. You're so
determined to be right, you simply don't listen to what's being said to
you.

You asked why he refuses to believe....it's because you don't listen.
So, he doesn't, like the rest of us, believe that you're doing anything
but spewing the corporate line.

When someone asks you to listen, the correct response is 'okay.' Not
several paragraphs of liturgy.

Listen as much as you speak, and you may find that you're LISTENED TO
in return.


But you're not listening, so, I'll conclude, here.

Try reading it again. This time, pay attention to what's actually
being said, instead of what opens the door for more pedantry.

You asked why...now I've told you three times. So far, you've not
even so much as acknowledged what I've said.

Have a good morning, Pancho.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
news David Eduardo wrote:
Why do you refuse to believe facts an entire industry is guide by?
Instead of examining the facts, you hurl insults.

Because he, like the rest of us, doesn't accept the premise that an
industry licensed "to serve in the public interest as a public trustee"
may unilaterally make performance commitments based exclusively on a
bottom line.

We are discussing where listening takes place. Not profitability.


Go back and read carefully, you asked why. I told you why.

I read what you said. There is nothing in my back and forth with Telamon
about listener service in the areas the FCC and our ability to serve
dictate. He has, repeatedly, sad that my facts, which are the industry
facts, about where listening takes place, is not true.

SNIP

Yes, what you claim to be facts are pretty sad. Good call for once.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California