Oh I am?
Don't piss on my boot and try to tell me it's raining.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
“There will be some slowdown in adoption of HD Radio in other GM brands.” Tom Taylor
- Thread starter KB1OKL
- Start date
Oh I am?
Don't piss on my boot and try to tell me it's raining.
You took me out of context. Here's the rest of what I said:
So I have no problem at all with listeners streaming OTA stations via tunein apps or station web sites. No problem at all. Radio companies don't own the frequencies they broadcast on. They continue to use them because so many people still prefer traditional AM & FM. The 250 million number I gave is for the people who still use traditional AM & FM. But we've all transitioned over to other platforms already, and we're getting better results there than stations that operate strictly online. I'm not married to any transmission system. So it would make no sense for me to defend it. I think everybody in radio would be quite happy operating online, where we have no regulatory obligations or other constraints.
Last edited:
Leave AM be, It's not dead
There's people still listen to AM
There's people still listen to AM
I did no such thing. What I said is still exactly correct in context. You stated that listeners are tuning into traditional AM and FM stations due to it being available on their device, that the DEVICE was the issue, not the content. That's what we're arguing here, and you claimed something the facts simply do not support.
Problem is, listeners AREN'T streaming OTA stations to the same extent that they're listening to pure play audio, podcasts and independent streams. But you don't want to hear it. You keep claiming that none of those options are each, individually, getting more listeners than radio as a whole does, and of course they don't. That's because you're comparing the whole of an entire platform to fractions of another, and that doesn't work in any argument. If this were a high school debate class, you'd fail instantly. And your 250 Million number is a load of crap, we both know that. Trying to sell me industry spin ain't gonna fly.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You gotta sh!ttin' me, dude! Were you not paying attention at all throughout the entire past fifteen years?! The traditional radio industry did nothing but attempt to destroy streaming throughout the late 90's and all of the 00's! From going to Congress all weepy and sobbing about how these new technologies were such a threat to their existence to the more recent lobbying of the Copyright Royalty Board to make sure that streamers were paying ridiculously more money to play licensed music than they would for doing the exact same thing on two platforms, radio has done nothing but attempt to destroy streaming. And now that they've actually gotten half of a clue and started trying to take it over on their own, they're being hoisted on their own petard thanks to the fact that the RIAA wants to hold them to the same standards that they helped to inflict upon the streamers!
Are you truly that deluded by your industry patriotism that you can't see the blatant lie you just told?
Wow.
So now you're an expert on what I think and what I said? Don't try to spin my posts to support your point of view. It just makes you look stupid. Everyone else knows what I was saying.
I don't know who you think I am, but I don't give a crap what the "industry" said or did for the past 15 years. I'm not obligated to the "industry" in any way. I call things as I see them. And I see you're just being argumentative. You don't like anything that doesn't promote your agenda. Fine. Argue with yourself for a while.
I don't have to be an expert, I quoted you directly. You were very clear in what you said. Trying to change the meaning after the fact only proves that you know you were wrong. Nothing about that makes me look stupid, and everyone else knows you're trying to backpedal your way out of this now.
You don't have to be "obligated" to be brainwashed. And the whole "you don't know who I am" point just translates to "do you know who I am?" I don't care who you are, your claims don't match the facts. I have no agenda to promote, I live in reality. You can look up any one of the points that I've made and find them to be true. Not so much with your own.
Storming off and calling me "argumentative" to make yourself feel as if you've won something is a rather typical move for someone who knows he's in an indefensible position. If you don't like the facts, that's fine, but you're going to have to face them sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
I face the facts every day.
Apparently not; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing this.
I'm not arguing.
Not anymore, no. It's hard to continue arguing when you're supporting a lost cause.
Have a nice day.
I just knew you were going to have to have the last word
Same to you.
- Status