There's no denying that you refuse to present supporting facts. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
-
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
Radio is Dead (and not just AM)
- Thread starter landtuna
- Start date
There's no denying that you refuse to present supporting facts. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
You're in denial over that, too. I presented facts that you can easily look up to verify, and you refuse to do so. Burying your head in the sand doesn't change the situation.
No, you hijacked this thread with opinions that had no facts. If there were verifiable facts, you'd be crazy not to post them. But you've chosen to blame us for your lack of verifiable facts. Hey, we all know you can't back up what you say. That's why we called you on this two pages ago. Until you do, you're just pissing in the wind. And I can do this all day, as long as you can.
You have not presented any facts, so there is nothing to verify.
You have come to conclusions about the radio industry's reaction to satellite and DAB that are contrary to fact. You take satellite and DAB and combine them as "digital" as if they were the same thing, which they were not. And you don't recognize that there was not opposition to satellite but, really, opposition to the use of terrestrial repeaters of satellite radio to do local program originations. And then you fail to recognize that the oppostion to DAB was entirely different, and based on the destruction of asset values and the addition of a third radio band when a huge percentage of existing stations were not making money.
In other words, you looked at a few headlines and made up the stories under those banners to fit your agenda.
David, I never made any mention of terrestrial repeaters. That was an assumption YOU made. Nothing I said had anything to do with them.
I didn't hijack any thread, I made a point based on facts which are easily found in the trade press stories of the time. If people don't want to live in reality, that's their own choice, but I'm not going to stop pointing it out just because others decide to be ignorant of the facts.
I didn't hijack any thread, I made a point based on facts which are easily found in the trade press stories of the time. If people don't want to live in reality, that's their own choice, but I'm not going to stop pointing it out just because others decide to be ignorant of the facts.
If they're so easily found, then why haven't you referenced one of them? You hijacked a thread about radio reception in the desert to declare "radio tried to kill off digital" and "the RIAA and the NAB teamed up to kill off Internet radio" that "radio stations do not pay performance royalties on their streams" and finally that "this business is barely hanging on by a thread." None of those things are true, and you have presented no press stories at all that substantiate your claims.
Since you believe radio doesn't pay for streaming, here's a story from five years ago that shows exactly how much they pay. Maybe now you'll start to withdraw some of your untrue assertions. If you persist, I'll post more trade stories that counter your claims.
http://rbr.com/nab-soundexchange-get-together-on-stream-scheme/
Of course you did not mention the satellite terrestrial repeaters because doing so would ruin your argument that, paraphrased, said "terrestrial radio tried to stop satellite radio".
In fact, when the FCC authorized satellite to use in-band on-channel repeaters to fill in in areas of severe terrain blockage and in places where urban canyons prevented reception, the satellite providers were about to do an end run and put local programming on the repeaters. Terrestrial radio opposed that move as it was not in the original lawmaking and rulemaking for the sat services.
Instead, you just said that broadcast radio had opposed satellite, a wildly exaggerated statement.
The thread was about reception of stations in areas between Phoenix and Los Angeles along the 10 fwy. Your comments had nothing to do with reception, and were thus off the subject and, truly, a rather skill-less attempt at thread hijacking.
Most of what I'm hearing is a bunch of "I'M GONNA BE THE ONE TO SHOUT YOU DOWN!" noise from you both. Talk about immature.
As for the royalties, that is the only thing I owe a correction on. I was thinking of the OTA performance royalty situation, not streaming. "AHA! GOTCHA!" shout the people who have otherwise demonstrated their ignorance.
As for the royalties, that is the only thing I owe a correction on. I was thinking of the OTA performance royalty situation, not streaming. "AHA! GOTCHA!" shout the people who have otherwise demonstrated their ignorance.
Even your attempts at obfuscation fail.
The fact is that we have called you out for seizing the thread and making a bunch of totally unsustainable statements. When asked for references or citations, you call us immature. Go figure.
Were it the only thin you got wrong, you'd find that you'd be easily pardoned. We all make mistakes and when we accept them, we grow.
Nope. You're also wrong about "the RIAA and the NAB teamed up to kill off Internet radio." It never happened. The RIAA specifically used Internet radio against the NAB. There never was any conspiracy to kill off Internet radio. So unless you can back that up somewhere, you might as well add that one to your corrections.
The ostrich act you're both playing does not constitute any failure on my part.
You're right. Your a failure regardless of what either of us say.
Nice try, but that's not how it works.
Yes it is. And you're still wrong. Shall I show you more proof?
Oh, sure, keep right on proving yourself wrong. I have no objection to that.
You've already lost all credibility.
Ha! Only in yours and David's minds. Anyone who has actually been paying attention to the industry knows exactly what I'm talking about.
You see all the support you've been receiving in this thread?
A: Anyone likely to support me has probably been driven away by your incessant, immature need to prove me wrong, and B: whether or not anyone speaks up to support me is irrelevant, because I'm correct.
Yep in your head, in your ostrich hole, in the isolated world you live in, you are correct.
But when someone calls you out, you're unable to substantiate a single claim. Not one.
I have no need to prove you wrong since you've been unable to prove that you're right. I'd be satisfied if you'd just do that.
- Status