Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message .com... "David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:50:35 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message 3. The listener does not pay for HD. 4. The listener pays for satellite radio. Don't be absurd. You pay for so-called free radio every time you buy one of the bull**** consumer products or services advertised thereon. That is a real load. You do not have to buy anything to use terrestrial radio. That's a half-truth and you know it. As consumers we DO have to buy a great many things. You know what I meant. To listen to the radio, you do not have to agree to buy anything. You can buy or not buy at your option. If the product is advertised on the the radio, then the cost of that advertisement is factored into the bottom line, and therefor the cost of the product to the consumer. Any marketing costs are. So is shipping, spoiled goods, labor, raw materials. That is not specific to radio however, and thus irrelevant here. those who offer goods and services have to use some method of letting consumers know of their existence. But this cost is not caused by raido, but, instead, by the need to engage in marketing. Quit trying to blow smoke up our asses. Is there some reason you have to use vulgarities? That ususally means the person so engaged has lost the argument. Nothing in this world is ever free. Even so-called NCE stations receive tax dollars either directly or indirectly, so we're all paying for those as well. But these costs are not a consequence of listening to the radio... they are marketing costs that would be the same even if the advertiser never used radio. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:23:30 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote: Brenda Ann wrote: Even so-called NCE stations receive tax dollars either directly or indirectly, so we're all paying for those as well. Surprisingly few, these days, actually. Most Non-Coms exist by listener support, corporate grant, and CPB funding. But very little actual tax money. That's one reason why Non-Coms frequently have such fine facilties. They don't have to survive on ratings based advertising revenue streams. Really? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/ The corporations and individuals get a tax break for contributing. These funds must be made up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of publicly funded media (it's purer) but don't blow smoke up my ass about who pays for it. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
"David" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:23:30 GMT, D Peter Maus wrote: Brenda Ann wrote: Even so-called NCE stations receive tax dollars either directly or indirectly, so we're all paying for those as well. Surprisingly few, these days, actually. Most Non-Coms exist by listener support, corporate grant, and CPB funding. But very little actual tax money. That's one reason why Non-Coms frequently have such fine facilties. They don't have to survive on ratings based advertising revenue streams. Really? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/ The corporations and individuals get a tax break for contributing. These funds must be made up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of publicly funded media (it's purer) but don't blow smoke up my ass about who pays for it. All costs of doing business are expenses and figure into the cost of all goods and services. As to individuals, the tax codes are structured to encourage private persons to engage in philanthropy. This, as I have said, has nothing specific to do with radio. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
David wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:23:30 GMT, D Peter Maus wrote: Brenda Ann wrote: Even so-called NCE stations receive tax dollars either directly or indirectly, so we're all paying for those as well. Surprisingly few, these days, actually. Most Non-Coms exist by listener support, corporate grant, and CPB funding. But very little actual tax money. That's one reason why Non-Coms frequently have such fine facilties. They don't have to survive on ratings based advertising revenue streams. Really? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/ The corporations and individuals get a tax break for contributing. These funds must be made up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of publicly funded media (it's purer) but don't blow smoke up my ass about who pays for it. David, You mean to say that The Evil Corporations who give Money to Non-Com Broadcasters * and get Tax Breaks * and Pay No Corporate Taxes Are Ripping-Off The Public ? ? ? - - - Especially the Public Who Does Not Watch PBS or Listen to NPR ! ! ! it boggles the mind ~ RHF |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
David wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:50:35 GMT, "David Eduardo" wrote: "Steve" wrote in message 3. The listener does not pay for HD. 4. The listener pays for satellite radio. - Don't be absurd. You pay for so-called free radio - every time you buy one of the bull**** consumer - products or services advertised thereon. DaviD - Yes I Do Gladly - GLADY ! ~ RHF { Advertising Makes Me An Informed Consumer } OBTW - Count-Up the Square Inches of Ads in a local Newspaper against the Number of Square Inches of Actual News in that same local Newspaper. - - - The same local Newspaper that you pay-cash-money-for {buy}. Commercial Radio and TV are practically AD Free in-comparison - IMHO |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
David Eduardo wrote: "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message news "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6 by Edward Montgomery [long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped] IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons for change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content, without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system. And the IBOC proponents totally dismiss the primary advantage of the heritage delivery system, that is long distance propagation. - When the FCC dismissed the final attempts to get the 1 A clears - upgraded to 500 to 750 kw each in the late 60's, they began an - effort towards extreme localism that resulted, in the next decade, - in the allocation and licencing of at least on 1 B on every clear - channel in the US. At the seme time, lesser classes were allowed - on the clears, including daytimers and lower powered fulltimers. DE, 435 Congress Persons 'each' with a Local AM Radio Station in their Home District that is Adding to and Building the Local Economy are Clearly More Important then 25-50 'select' Congress Persons with one Clear Channel AM Radio Station monopolizing the marketing for an entire region. ~ RHF |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
On 20 Jul 2006 01:53:10 -0700, "RHF"
wrote: You mean to say that The Evil Corporations who give Money to Non-Com Broadcasters * and get Tax Breaks * and Pay No Corporate Taxes Are Ripping-Off The Public ? ? ? - - - Especially the Public Who Does Not Watch PBS or Listen to NPR ! ! ! it boggles the mind ~ RHF . . No. I don't mean to say that at all. Corporations are non-living entities and are not capable of being evil. The benefits of public broadcasting are enjoyed by everyone. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
On 20 Jul 2006 02:01:11 -0700, "RHF"
wrote: OBTW - Count-Up the Square Inches of Ads in a local Newspaper against the Number of Square Inches of Actual News in that same local Newspaper. - - - The same local Newspaper that you pay-cash-money-for {buy}. Commercial Radio and TV are practically AD Free in-comparison - IMHO . That's an invalid comparison. Newspapers are parallel, radio is serial. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
"David Eduardo" wrote in message y.net... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message news "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "David Eduardo" wrote in message . com... Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6 by Edward Montgomery [long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped] IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons for change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content, without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system. And the IBOC proponents totally dismiss the primary advantage of the heritage delivery system, that is long distance propagation. When the FCC dismissed the final attempts to get the 1 A clears upgraded to 500 to 750 kw each in the late 60's, they began an effort towards extreme localism that resulted, in the next decade, in the allocation and licencing of at least on 1 B on every clear channel in the US. At the seme time, lesser classes were allowed on the clears, including daytimers and lower powered fulltimers. The FCC was showing a policy that virtually eliminated the usage of even the clears for long distance propagation in favor of local, groundwave reception for AMs. A look at any of the clears in 1960 vs. 1990 or today will show how this has populated those channels. The other classes, such as regional and local channels were never guaranteed skywave coverage and were, in fact, only protected form local skywave interference in the primary coverge area at night (known as the interference free zone...). It has been three decades since the FCC has considered night skywave coverage important. It has been that long or longer since stations themselves considered skywave coverage to be much more than a curiosity. Much of this has to do with the change int he radio model in the mid-50s from having the heaviest AM usage at night (before TV was universal) to today, when AM listening at night is vastly less than any other daypart. Who was leading who on this? That is did the FCC decide out of the blue to deemphasize the clear channels or was it other stations who wanted to operate at night? And why would they want to operate at night, anyway? Oh, I know. There is no longer any economic advantage to long distance propagation. But, for most of us, the debate goes beyond money. That is only part of the matter. Would any station be interested in consistent, listenable night audiences, there is declining usage of radio at night, the decline in use of AM by younger listeners and the FCC's own policies that come in the way. Add to that the fact that in may areas, storng international Am interference ruins AM anyway. Canada is phasing out AM rapidly in all but the biggest cities. This is because they believe there that AM is not the way of the future. AMs are left in big cit9ies to serve niche and minority audiences, like the Chinese stations in Vancouver or the standards station in Toronto. Is the Canadian phase out voluentary? By the way, I happen to like listening to the brokered /ethnic stations. If that's all that's someday left on AM, AM will still be quite lively. The other night I was tuning around and caught a WBZ talkshow about the tunnel collapse. It was interesting to hear Bostonians give thier opinions in their own voices. And I know my listening gave no economic benefit to WBZ or the economy in general or even to myself in particular. Nevertheless, it was worthwhile. But you could also get WBZ on the web, right? I wouldn't have known what was on if I was a web listener. That night I had some free time and I was checking propagation. KDKA was audible, but uninteresting. WBZ was clear. WHO was in the noise. WBZ was interesting enough so I stopped there. I suppose I could something like that on the web, but I find net congestion less charming than fading. You are not being deprived of the message, just one medium. Exactly. And the medium is fascinating. It's a fascination I've had since I was 10, tuning into cities I was newly learning about. I had no references to stations and frequencies and I puzzled out which cities were coming in by ads, weather and traffic reports and the local news. I'm sure I developed my passion for radio at that age. A guy I once knew told me about a road trip he took when he was about 20. He was amazed that he could hear WLS pretty well all the way out to St. George, Utah. Yeah, I explained, radio's like that. And sometimes reception will be lousy. But mostly it's magical. He tried to repeat the magic on his next road trip a few years later. Too much interference, too many stations. Needless to say, he'll never develop the same passion for radio. Ahh, he was probably to old at the time, anyway. I know I'm not the only person with the passion for radio, this group's full of 'em. But I also know we aren't numerous enough to have an economic impact on the broadcast industry. I suppose we're mostly a pain in the ass to you guys, acting like we get a sharp stick in the ear every time we hear the Din of Ibiquity. To take away radio's long distance propagation is diminishing a national resource. It turns radio into a mere conduit for the broadcast industry. It takes the magic out of radio. The radio spectrum is one of our natural resources and ought to be managed as such. Should every old growth tree in the national forests be chopped down, even if it benefits some people? There are some national parks in which hardly anybody visits. Should they be strip mined? As I said, the FCC policies going back nearly 40 years have brought us to this point, and, coupled with the "sound" of AM, we have a fait acomplit. What's the economic value of a clear, starry night? None, really. But we do make modest restrictions on light pollution despite thier economic costs. Long distance radio propagation on the AM band is a natural resource which also deserves some protection. The FCC has chosen long ago to discard this as less meaningful than more local service that is relible and consistent. I see. It's all the FCC's fault. I suppose that's another one of their silly decisions like when they were forcing stations to do "editorials". So, how long has the broadcast industry been fighting them on this? I don't have any problem with fee based radio and I don't know anybody who is much bothered by the concept. Try talking to people who make below the US median household income... families that live on $15,000 a year, or, for whatever reason, are on subsistence programs. Tell them to spend $12 a month for each radio. Free radio has many benefits, or there would not be 94% of the population using it each week... and any other alternative further segregates the priviledges of the "haves" and thes leftovers of the "have nots." Oh, that's really a reach. I really doubt most of the stations would go the pay route, even if they were offered the chance. But a few might, just as a few TV stations had a fling with pay TV about 25 years ago. But let's pretend the unimaginable happened. All the stations went subscription. All the network stations, all the independents, all the brokered stations, all the college stations ... well, you get the idea. Then I guess poorer people -- that is those poor people who hadn't moved to alternative sources and actually wanted to listen to the radio -- well, I suppose they'd have to pay to listen to the radio. Gee, I suppose some of those poor people might have to decide between pay TV and pay radio: "62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. " http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm It would be interesting to see how this turns out, if radio ever goes completely to subscription. But, for some reason, I really, really doubt it will ever put itself to that test. But maybe there's teeming masses of impoverished Americans who are now barely able to afford radio. Are they able to buy batteries? If you start a charity drive to collect batteries for destitute radio listeners, I'll contribute some new AAs. If some stations want to try to make a go of it as pay channels, that's fine as long as they aren't interfering with other stations. There is no talk of this. The model is advertising support, not subscription. Could it be because they don't think there's enough money in pay radio? Yes, but the substitues have only been around for a few years and they're growing fast. I find these things interesting, at least conceptually. If I were not so set in my ways, I'm sure I'd be really into them. Satellite has spent 5 years getting to about a half-share of listening. And it is cooling (withness XM's failure to meet projections and the loss of 60% f its market capitalization). And mp3 players. And wifi radios. Not to mention old-fashioned CD-Rs. Let's not forget censorship. Alot of popular stuff won't pass FCC muster. I think you overestimate the number of people who want to hear DJs cuss. And that is what satellite can serve. Actually, I was thinking about rap. It's summertime, and I drive with my windows down. I hear alot of stuff which is, to put it mildly, unfit for mass radio. I'm guessing I'm hearing recordings. Frank Dresser |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
HD article from Radio World
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:08:48 GMT, John Barnard wrote:
Steve wrote: David Eduardo wrote: "Steve" wrote in message oups.com... If you have your way, AM radio will soon be a thing of the past. IBOC will be the stake through its heart It is already dying. HD is an effort to see if it can be saved. HD is a pathetic and misguided effort to see if it can be saved. And your alternative is????? JB I'd make it hi-fi again. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|