R
RobertMoore
Guest
It look like this was bound to happen. Here's the link to the story
http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_14/topstory.asp
http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_14/topstory.asp
-
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
Congress wants to restore radio ownership cap, restore Fairness Doctrine.
S
SamBuca
Guest
Wait wait...a bill that does something constructive, is needed, and makes sense?
The end of the world must be near.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
The end of the world must be near.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
K
KMRichards
Guest
> Wait wait...a bill that does something constructive, is
> needed, and makes sense?
>
> The end of the world must be near.
Are those the riders of the apocalypse I see heading for Capitol Hill?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> needed, and makes sense?
>
> The end of the world must be near.
Are those the riders of the apocalypse I see heading for Capitol Hill?
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
> > Wait wait...a bill that does something constructive, is
> > needed, and makes sense?
> >
> > The end of the world must be near.
>
> Are those the riders of the apocalypse I see heading for
> Capitol Hill?
>
This bill has less than a 0% chance of being passed despite some Republicans who'd like to see tighter rules in respect to broadcasting ownership limits. The bill is sponsored by an very liberal Democrat from New York and co-sponsored by a very liberal Democrat from California.
It's quite ironic and sometimes forgotton the person who raised the market limit from 2 to 5 FM's or AM's each (limit 8 total AM/FM per market in major/large markets) was Bill Clinton.
> > needed, and makes sense?
> >
> > The end of the world must be near.
>
> Are those the riders of the apocalypse I see heading for
> Capitol Hill?
>
This bill has less than a 0% chance of being passed despite some Republicans who'd like to see tighter rules in respect to broadcasting ownership limits. The bill is sponsored by an very liberal Democrat from New York and co-sponsored by a very liberal Democrat from California.
It's quite ironic and sometimes forgotton the person who raised the market limit from 2 to 5 FM's or AM's each (limit 8 total AM/FM per market in major/large markets) was Bill Clinton.
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are able to buy.
It means that every available frequency on AM and FM that will not interfere with someone else's should be privately owned. That includes FM below 92.1 too.
Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to radio now.
I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it right.
The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn that.
> It look like this was bound to happen. Here's the link to
> the story
htt> p://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_14/topstory.asp
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are able to buy.
It means that every available frequency on AM and FM that will not interfere with someone else's should be privately owned. That includes FM below 92.1 too.
Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to radio now.
I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it right.
The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn that.
> It look like this was bound to happen. Here's the link to
> the story
htt> p://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_14/topstory.asp
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
> You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are
> able to buy.
>
> It means that every available frequency on AM and FM that
> will not interfere with someone else's should be privately
> owned. That includes FM below 92.1 too.
>
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
>
> I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the
> real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton
> Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it
> right.
>
> The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of
> government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn
> that.
Darn right...local/community and ethnic minority broadcast ownership, who needs it? After all, there's always the internet
<P ID="signature">______________
There's nothing to see here.</P>
> You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are
> able to buy.
>
> It means that every available frequency on AM and FM that
> will not interfere with someone else's should be privately
> owned. That includes FM below 92.1 too.
>
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
>
> I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the
> real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton
> Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it
> right.
>
> The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of
> government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn
> that.
Darn right...local/community and ethnic minority broadcast ownership, who needs it? After all, there's always the internet
<P ID="signature">______________There's nothing to see here.</P>
> It's quite ironic and sometimes forgotton the person who
> raised the market limit from 2 to 5 FM's or AM's each (limit
> 8 total AM/FM per market in major/large markets) was Bill
> Clinton.
Yes, Clinton signed the Telecomm Bill into law. Just keep in mind that it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Al Gore was a big supporter of the bill, too, as I recall. I seem to remember it passing the Senate with fewer than five dissenting votes.
> raised the market limit from 2 to 5 FM's or AM's each (limit
> 8 total AM/FM per market in major/large markets) was Bill
> Clinton.
Yes, Clinton signed the Telecomm Bill into law. Just keep in mind that it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Al Gore was a big supporter of the bill, too, as I recall. I seem to remember it passing the Senate with fewer than five dissenting votes.
Re: Congress and broadcasting
"I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old!"
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but being old, I have learned that politics does not seek out the best available idea. Politicians have read the same books you and I have. The Democrats dismiss these ideas as "extremism" and the Republicans claim to agree and then vote for the status quo.
"The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn that."
It was arguable 20 years ago how much of the old regulation was useful but now? XM boasts of 4.4 million subscribers but Apple announced yesterday that they sold over 6 million iPods... just last <u>quarter!</u>
It's depressing. Radio managers are perfectly capable of innovation themselves but with the heavy burden of regulation, it's a pretty significant disadvantage. And to make it worse, half the people on their own team are still hoping for a return to "the good ol' days". Good luck with that!<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
"I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old!"
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but being old, I have learned that politics does not seek out the best available idea. Politicians have read the same books you and I have. The Democrats dismiss these ideas as "extremism" and the Republicans claim to agree and then vote for the status quo.
"The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn that."
It was arguable 20 years ago how much of the old regulation was useful but now? XM boasts of 4.4 million subscribers but Apple announced yesterday that they sold over 6 million iPods... just last <u>quarter!</u>
It's depressing. Radio managers are perfectly capable of innovation themselves but with the heavy burden of regulation, it's a pretty significant disadvantage. And to make it worse, half the people on their own team are still hoping for a return to "the good ol' days". Good luck with that!<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
R
RobertMoore
Guest
Re: Congress and broadcasting
That was a good statement. BTW I don't see this one being rolled back as long there is a lobbyist from the world of broadcasting lurking around the beltway.
That was a good statement. BTW I don't see this one being rolled back as long there is a lobbyist from the world of broadcasting lurking around the beltway.
T
Tom_Desmond
Guest
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
I'll start by making note of a couple of facts that can easily be forgotten in debates:
1. Despite the thread title, it is by no means clear than any more than a handful of congress people want this particular legislation -- being introduced with a couple of sponsors is a long ways from being passed.
2. There is absolutely nothing socialist about the proposed legislation; whether you agree or disagree with the concept of ownership limits, the fact is that this legislation would maintain PRIVATE ownership of broadcast media.
Those statements of fact out of the way, my OPINION is that reinstating tougher ownership limits would be a good thing -- and would result in increased competition and better radio service to the public. I'm less enthusiastic about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, since I see substantial first amendment problems with that.
> You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are
> able to buy.
I disagree. As we've seen greater ownership concentration, we've seen a steady decrease in innovation and local service in the radio business. Since it seems not to be working, I fail to see why we'd want to try more of it..
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
I think that you're so anxious to see everything through the ideological filter that "regulation is always evil", that you've blinded yourself to the evidence that suggests that some regulation can help maintain competition and actually increases the effectiveness of the market place.
On the one hand, excessive regulation is inefficient and smothers competition, resulting in poor service to the public. But at the other extreme, the sort of deregulation that you want will lead to even more consolidation than we've already seen -- and the evidence suggests that the reduced competition also leads to lackluster programming and poor service to the public. The challenge is in finding the right balance.
In radio this is complicated by the basic fact that the number of available channels are limited. This means that when one company owns more stations in a given location, there is inherently that much less opportunity for someone else to come in and compete. All the political and economic ideology in the world won't change that basic fact.
> I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the
> real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton
> Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it
> right.
Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are about as "real world" as any other radicals of any political persuasion, whether far left or far right. I know more want to use them as "road maps" of good policy than I would care to use Karl Marx. And, yeah, I agree that Rand and Friedman have been influential...but that doesn't make them right. Plenty of folks have been influential in the past, only to be disproven when their theories are tested in the real world and found lacking.
I'll start by making note of a couple of facts that can easily be forgotten in debates:
1. Despite the thread title, it is by no means clear than any more than a handful of congress people want this particular legislation -- being introduced with a couple of sponsors is a long ways from being passed.
2. There is absolutely nothing socialist about the proposed legislation; whether you agree or disagree with the concept of ownership limits, the fact is that this legislation would maintain PRIVATE ownership of broadcast media.
Those statements of fact out of the way, my OPINION is that reinstating tougher ownership limits would be a good thing -- and would result in increased competition and better radio service to the public. I'm less enthusiastic about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, since I see substantial first amendment problems with that.
> You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and are
> able to buy.
I disagree. As we've seen greater ownership concentration, we've seen a steady decrease in innovation and local service in the radio business. Since it seems not to be working, I fail to see why we'd want to try more of it..
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
I think that you're so anxious to see everything through the ideological filter that "regulation is always evil", that you've blinded yourself to the evidence that suggests that some regulation can help maintain competition and actually increases the effectiveness of the market place.
On the one hand, excessive regulation is inefficient and smothers competition, resulting in poor service to the public. But at the other extreme, the sort of deregulation that you want will lead to even more consolidation than we've already seen -- and the evidence suggests that the reduced competition also leads to lackluster programming and poor service to the public. The challenge is in finding the right balance.
In radio this is complicated by the basic fact that the number of available channels are limited. This means that when one company owns more stations in a given location, there is inherently that much less opportunity for someone else to come in and compete. All the political and economic ideology in the world won't change that basic fact.
> I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the
> real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton
> Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it
> right.
Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are about as "real world" as any other radicals of any political persuasion, whether far left or far right. I know more want to use them as "road maps" of good policy than I would care to use Karl Marx. And, yeah, I agree that Rand and Friedman have been influential...but that doesn't make them right. Plenty of folks have been influential in the past, only to be disproven when their theories are tested in the real world and found lacking.
9
954
Guest
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
>
> I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the
> real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton
> Friedman.
Ahem.... I recommend Rand's Atlas Shrugged
and The Fountainhead
. Both are fiction. (Don't be bashful. Follow the link and read the synopsis!)
> Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it
> right.
For an easy-to-read and entertaining book about free-market economics, read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
. I bought it (voluntarily) in college and enjoyed it, unlike the economics texts I had to read.
> The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of
> government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn
> that.
>
> > It look like this was bound to happen. Here's the link to
> > the story
> http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_14/topstory.asp
Watch out.... or else later I may recommend a 157-year-old book by a Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat.
<P ID="signature">______________
July 2005 Radio News
June 2005 Radio News</P>
> Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be it
> peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
> eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> radio now.
>
> I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in the
> real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or Milton
> Friedman.
Ahem.... I recommend Rand's Atlas Shrugged
> Even if the book is fifty years old! They got it
> right.
For an easy-to-read and entertaining book about free-market economics, read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
> The worst thing for radio is to add to its burden of
> government regulation. I wish you guys would finally learn
> that.
>
> > It look like this was bound to happen. Here's the link to
> > the story
> http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_07_14/topstory.asp
Watch out.... or else later I may recommend a 157-year-old book by a Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat.
<P ID="signature">______________
July 2005 Radio News
June 2005 Radio News</P>
9
954
Guest
> > It's quite ironic and sometimes forgotton the person who
> > raised the market limit from 2 to 5 FM's or AM's each
> (limit
> > 8 total AM/FM per market in major/large markets) was Bill
> > Clinton.
>
> Yes, Clinton signed the Telecomm Bill into law. Just keep
> in mind that it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
> Al Gore was a big supporter of the bill, too, as I recall.
> I seem to remember it passing the Senate with fewer than
> five dissenting votes.
Then I guess it's a good lesson about the LAW ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
73s from 954.<P ID="signature">______________
July 2005 Radio News
June 2005 Radio News</P>
> > raised the market limit from 2 to 5 FM's or AM's each
> (limit
> > 8 total AM/FM per market in major/large markets) was Bill
> > Clinton.
>
> Yes, Clinton signed the Telecomm Bill into law. Just keep
> in mind that it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
> Al Gore was a big supporter of the bill, too, as I recall.
> I seem to remember it passing the Senate with fewer than
> five dissenting votes.
Then I guess it's a good lesson about the LAW ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
73s from 954.<P ID="signature">______________
July 2005 Radio News
June 2005 Radio News</P>
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
I tried reading The Wealth Of Nations (published in 1776), by Adam Smith and could not get past chapter two.
> Watch out.... or else later I may recommend a 157-year-old
> book by a Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
I tried reading The Wealth Of Nations (published in 1776), by Adam Smith and could not get past chapter two.
> Watch out.... or else later I may recommend a 157-year-old
> book by a Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
> I'll start by making note of a couple of facts that can
> easily be forgotten in debates:
> 1. Despite the thread title, it is by no means clear than
> any more than a handful of congress people want this
> particular legislation -- being introduced with a couple of
> sponsors is a long ways from being passed.
> 2. There is absolutely nothing socialist about the proposed
> legislation; whether you agree or disagree with the concept
> of ownership limits, the fact is that this legislation would
> maintain PRIVATE ownership of broadcast media.
The airwaves ie. radio frequencies are owned by the government. Radio stations use them under authority of the government and must operate under the government rules.
You may not like to face that fact, but government ownership of the airwaves is Socialism. Yes, most stations (outside of NPR) are private, but they are under the thumb of government in a way that most businesses are not in this country. There is the threat of being put out of business, if the station does not follow all of the rules laid down by the government.
> Those statements of fact out of the way, my OPINION is that
> reinstating tougher ownership limits would be a good thing
> -- and would result in increased competition and better
> radio service to the public.
I have not seen instances where there is an improved product or service by increasing regulation.
I'm less enthusiastic about
> reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, since I see substantial
> first amendment problems with that.
>
> > You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> > regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> > ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and
> are
> > able to buy.
>
> I disagree. As we've seen greater ownership concentration,
> we've seen a steady decrease in innovation and local service
> in the radio business. Since it seems not to be working, I
> fail to see why we'd want to try more of it..
What you wrote is a result of the difficulty of entering the radio business or market. A million dollars and many attorneys will help to establish a new station or sale of a station now. There is no reason why buying a radio station should be any more complicated than buying a home or a piece of land. If you have the money, then a contract can be made and a closing can take place. What is so hard about that? Then people who love music or love radio can get into the business.
> > Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be
> it
> > peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
>
> > eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> > radio now.
>
> I think that you're so anxious to see everything through the
> ideological filter that "regulation is always evil", that
> you've blinded yourself to the evidence that suggests that
> some regulation can help maintain competition and actually
> increases the effectiveness of the market place.
My experience is that regulation squeezes the life out of any industry where it is prevalent. I have yet to see an exception. I can give side by side examples where the public is served much better with little or no regulation compared to much regulation.
> On the one hand, excessive regulation is inefficient and
> smothers competition, resulting in poor service to the
> public. But at the other extreme, the sort of deregulation
> that you want will lead to even more consolidation than
> we've already seen -- and the evidence suggests that the
> reduced competition also leads to lackluster programming and
> poor service to the public. The challenge is in finding the
> right balance.
>
> In radio this is complicated by the basic fact that the
> number of available channels are limited. This means that
> when one company owns more stations in a given location,
> there is inherently that much less opportunity for someone
> else to come in and compete. All the political and economic
> ideology in the world won't change that basic fact.
There are frequencies around the country that are unused due to regulation. If every available frequency that is without interference could be open, then there would be some real competition. I understand that NYC and SoCal have all their frequencies used. That is not the case for most of the country.
The amount of land is limited too, but that has not brought about intense radio style regulation of land.
> > I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in
> the
> > real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or
> Milton
> > Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got
> it
> > right.
I know that what has been tested by Friedman in the real world has suceeded. I also know that regulation has shown some bad effects in the real world where it is used.
> Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are about as "real world" as
> any other radicals of any political persuasion, whether far
> left or far right. I know more want to use them as "road
> maps" of good policy than I would care to use Karl Marx.
> And, yeah, I agree that Rand and Friedman have been
> influential...but that doesn't make them right. Plenty of
> folks have been influential in the past, only to be
> disproven when their theories are tested in the real world
> and found lacking.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
> I'll start by making note of a couple of facts that can
> easily be forgotten in debates:
> 1. Despite the thread title, it is by no means clear than
> any more than a handful of congress people want this
> particular legislation -- being introduced with a couple of
> sponsors is a long ways from being passed.
> 2. There is absolutely nothing socialist about the proposed
> legislation; whether you agree or disagree with the concept
> of ownership limits, the fact is that this legislation would
> maintain PRIVATE ownership of broadcast media.
The airwaves ie. radio frequencies are owned by the government. Radio stations use them under authority of the government and must operate under the government rules.
You may not like to face that fact, but government ownership of the airwaves is Socialism. Yes, most stations (outside of NPR) are private, but they are under the thumb of government in a way that most businesses are not in this country. There is the threat of being put out of business, if the station does not follow all of the rules laid down by the government.
> Those statements of fact out of the way, my OPINION is that
> reinstating tougher ownership limits would be a good thing
> -- and would result in increased competition and better
> radio service to the public.
I have not seen instances where there is an improved product or service by increasing regulation.
I'm less enthusiastic about
> reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, since I see substantial
> first amendment problems with that.
>
> > You guys got it all wrong. What radio needs is LESS
> > regulation in a big way. Less regulation means private
> > ownership of as many frequencies as you want to own and
> are
> > able to buy.
>
> I disagree. As we've seen greater ownership concentration,
> we've seen a steady decrease in innovation and local service
> in the radio business. Since it seems not to be working, I
> fail to see why we'd want to try more of it..
What you wrote is a result of the difficulty of entering the radio business or market. A million dollars and many attorneys will help to establish a new station or sale of a station now. There is no reason why buying a radio station should be any more complicated than buying a home or a piece of land. If you have the money, then a contract can be made and a closing can take place. What is so hard about that? Then people who love music or love radio can get into the business.
> > Why don't you people see that regulation of anything, be
> it
> > peanuts or radio frequencies will lead to inefficiency and
>
> > eventually unmarketability? That is what is happening to
> > radio now.
>
> I think that you're so anxious to see everything through the
> ideological filter that "regulation is always evil", that
> you've blinded yourself to the evidence that suggests that
> some regulation can help maintain competition and actually
> increases the effectiveness of the market place.
My experience is that regulation squeezes the life out of any industry where it is prevalent. I have yet to see an exception. I can give side by side examples where the public is served much better with little or no regulation compared to much regulation.
> On the one hand, excessive regulation is inefficient and
> smothers competition, resulting in poor service to the
> public. But at the other extreme, the sort of deregulation
> that you want will lead to even more consolidation than
> we've already seen -- and the evidence suggests that the
> reduced competition also leads to lackluster programming and
> poor service to the public. The challenge is in finding the
> right balance.
>
> In radio this is complicated by the basic fact that the
> number of available channels are limited. This means that
> when one company owns more stations in a given location,
> there is inherently that much less opportunity for someone
> else to come in and compete. All the political and economic
> ideology in the world won't change that basic fact.
There are frequencies around the country that are unused due to regulation. If every available frequency that is without interference could be open, then there would be some real competition. I understand that NYC and SoCal have all their frequencies used. That is not the case for most of the country.
The amount of land is limited too, but that has not brought about intense radio style regulation of land.
> > I suggest that if you want to know the way things are in
> the
> > real world, you should pick up a book by Ayn Rand or
> Milton
> > Friedman. Even if the book is fifty years old! They got
> it
> > right.
I know that what has been tested by Friedman in the real world has suceeded. I also know that regulation has shown some bad effects in the real world where it is used.
> Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are about as "real world" as
> any other radicals of any political persuasion, whether far
> left or far right. I know more want to use them as "road
> maps" of good policy than I would care to use Karl Marx.
> And, yeah, I agree that Rand and Friedman have been
> influential...but that doesn't make them right. Plenty of
> folks have been influential in the past, only to be
> disproven when their theories are tested in the real world
> and found lacking.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Here's the press release...
Here's the press release:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/071405mediabill.html
Here's the press release:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/071405mediabill.html
F
FloridaBear1776
Guest
My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...
I'll never forget, knowing people who were in the radio business in the late 90's -- good conservatives, strong believers in the free marketplace --
who were whipsawed by the "deregulation" and consolidation of the industry. As they stood jobless, they suffered from massive cognitive dissonance. They had advocated the marketplace all their lives, on and off the air, and when the full force of the market was let loose in 1996 it destroyed their careers and wiped out any notion of public service, responsiveness to an audience, to advertisers, local news, and just plain fun in radio. They stammered and stuttered. They had no words to express their loss, because they had spent their lives drinking the libertarian Kool-Aid, and here in their face was an obvious failure of same.
Their responses to the wreckage of their industry weren't always rational.
I remember one describing Clear Channel as "a bunch of socialists." It's so sad when a working stiff faces the world without the verbal tools to defend his livelihood, because a bunch of think-tank-fed sycophants have framed the world in such a way as to take away his only potential weapons against the billionaires...
Of course, Rush Limbaugh, their ideological soulmate, would have described them as nobodies who prattled on and on about the sewer referendum....
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by FloridaBear1776 on 07/15/05 07:52 AM.</FONT></P>
I'll never forget, knowing people who were in the radio business in the late 90's -- good conservatives, strong believers in the free marketplace --
who were whipsawed by the "deregulation" and consolidation of the industry. As they stood jobless, they suffered from massive cognitive dissonance. They had advocated the marketplace all their lives, on and off the air, and when the full force of the market was let loose in 1996 it destroyed their careers and wiped out any notion of public service, responsiveness to an audience, to advertisers, local news, and just plain fun in radio. They stammered and stuttered. They had no words to express their loss, because they had spent their lives drinking the libertarian Kool-Aid, and here in their face was an obvious failure of same.
Their responses to the wreckage of their industry weren't always rational.
I remember one describing Clear Channel as "a bunch of socialists." It's so sad when a working stiff faces the world without the verbal tools to defend his livelihood, because a bunch of think-tank-fed sycophants have framed the world in such a way as to take away his only potential weapons against the billionaires...
Of course, Rush Limbaugh, their ideological soulmate, would have described them as nobodies who prattled on and on about the sewer referendum....
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by FloridaBear1776 on 07/15/05 07:52 AM.</FONT></P>
R
radiophile
Guest
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
Every time ownership regs were loosened, radio's public service (news) elements declined.
Many markets are now at the point where they have no real radio news presence anymore (two medium markets where I grew up in Pennsylvania are prime examples).
One easing of the regs I would be in favor of: allowing newspapers and TV stations to own AM radio stations. If it would encourage the sharing of news gathering resources, and get more news back on the AM band, this would be a plus to the public.
Every time ownership regs were loosened, radio's public service (news) elements declined.
Many markets are now at the point where they have no real radio news presence anymore (two medium markets where I grew up in Pennsylvania are prime examples).
One easing of the regs I would be in favor of: allowing newspapers and TV stations to own AM radio stations. If it would encourage the sharing of news gathering resources, and get more news back on the AM band, this would be a plus to the public.
R
radiophile
Guest
what are the proposed caps in the bill?
The press release says nothing about what the proposed caps would be. Anyone know?
The press release says nothing about what the proposed caps would be. Anyone know?
Re: Congress wants ///CAPITALISM Not Socialism!!!
I also think that anyone should be able to own a station. That includes newspapers, FOREIGN citizens or corporations, convicted felons and former radio pirates. Let's get this exclusive country club mentality out of radio. Radio ownership should be for everyone.
> One easing of the regs I would be in favor of: allowing
> newspapers and TV stations to own AM radio stations. If it
> would encourage the sharing of news gathering resources, and
> get more news back on the AM band, this would be a plus to
> the public.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
I also think that anyone should be able to own a station. That includes newspapers, FOREIGN citizens or corporations, convicted felons and former radio pirates. Let's get this exclusive country club mentality out of radio. Radio ownership should be for everyone.
> One easing of the regs I would be in favor of: allowing
> newspapers and TV stations to own AM radio stations. If it
> would encourage the sharing of news gathering resources, and
> get more news back on the AM band, this would be a plus to
> the public.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Re: My only reply to the Ayn Rand fans...
Your reference to Rush is what his response is to the Fairness Doctrine. You took Rush out of context.
No one in the public should be forced to finance the career of anyone else against his will. If these people who were pushed out of work by deregulation and the economy had a demand for their services, then someone would hire them. Or they could move to where they would be hired. If they could start their own station, without having to spend a million dollars, then they could try it themselves or if radio frequency owners were private (not the government), then maybe someone could rent his desirable frequency to one of these talented but out of work radio people.
It is not the fault of deregulation, if they are supplying what the listeners want to hear.
>
> Of course, Rush Limbaugh, their ideological soulmate, would
> have described them as nobodies who prattled on and on about
> the sewer referendum....
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
Your reference to Rush is what his response is to the Fairness Doctrine. You took Rush out of context.
No one in the public should be forced to finance the career of anyone else against his will. If these people who were pushed out of work by deregulation and the economy had a demand for their services, then someone would hire them. Or they could move to where they would be hired. If they could start their own station, without having to spend a million dollars, then they could try it themselves or if radio frequency owners were private (not the government), then maybe someone could rent his desirable frequency to one of these talented but out of work radio people.
It is not the fault of deregulation, if they are supplying what the listeners want to hear.
>
> Of course, Rush Limbaugh, their ideological soulmate, would
> have described them as nobodies who prattled on and on about
> the sewer referendum....
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
- Status