"We Will Beat You"

[dbdigital]

Not much is being said about NAB head honcho David Rehr's boast, "We will beat you" referring to terrestrial radio beating satellite and internet radio. Personally, I saw it as a challenge.

Of course, the main problem with Rehr's statement is that it is an either/or declaration, as if listeners can't enjoy it all. It also reflects an old, head buried in the sand notion that, somehow, the genie can be put back in the bottle and people will stop listening to internet and satellite radio, forsake their iPods and return to terrestrial radio.

With all of the new CE products coming out for internet radio I think he'll eat his words sooner than later.

http://www.radioandrecords.com/radi...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003155164

db

 

[SUPERCASTER]

3 new internet radios.
http://corporate.reciva.com/news/article.asp?ItemID=84
Internet radio listening up 38%.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=276600

 

[DJKraze]

I'll say this, I spend over 9 hours a day sitting in thie chair here at work, and most of the time I'm listening to either a podcast of some sort (some of which were around before the word podcast was) and other times it'll be an on-demand stream of a show that was broadcast over the weekend or some other time when I'm not actually sitting here. The only time I'm listening to over the air radio is when I listen to shortwave radio, I might be the NAB's worst nightmare of a listener. When I'm in the car or at home, it's either Sirius or more internet radio (usually live broadcaster relays though)

 

[jcolletta275]

Two words for David Rehr: kiss it.

Once again the NAB shows it's ignorance, stone-age mentality and plain stupidity when it comes to new technology.

The two technologies can coexist, and they likely will once terrestrial radio comes around and realizes they're wrong. If that never happens, however... they're in a whole heap of trouble. And they'll lose. Big time.

 

[dbdigital]

Two words for David Rehr: kiss it.

Once again the NAB shows it's ignorance, stone-age mentality and plain stupidity when it comes to new technology.

The two technologies can coexist, and they likely will once terrestrial radio comes around and realizes they're wrong. If that never happens, however... they're in a whole heap of trouble. And they'll lose. Big time.

Agreed. I found his threat about "educating" politicians on the NAB agenda amusing. I think Rehr is forgetting that he's no longer selling beer and that the general climate among legislators toward corporate media is a frosty one at the moment.

Those Reciva radios look promising. It would be nice if they had an in-dash version. I'm sure it's coming.

db

 

[radioman1380]

This morning I went out to Radio 411 http://www.radio411.com to check on the world of broadcasting and noticed the headline "NAB to FCC: It's Time To Reform Local Ownership Rules". It's unfortunate that radio was deregulated to begin with and has allowed the de-personalization of the business by conglomerates. The NAB is siding with the 'big shots' and saying that the FCC should relax even further the ownership rules.

The NAB states that the FCC should reject the calls for more stringent restrictions on local radio and that the Telecom Act of 1996 has provided programming diversity. They say that terrestrial radio has many more competitors today and needs to be able to compete by allowing more consolidation.

Having been associated with broadcasting for nearly 40 years, I've seen the affect deregulation has had on radio in various markets and how there is very little 'local' to local radio anymore. The NAB no longer represents the local broadcaster...those few that still exist.

It seems to me that the Telecom Act of 1996 was the main influence for technology to find a way to provide what the radio listener wants and can't get through terrestrial radio. However, the 'local' aspect is still missing from that technology. But, at least, satellite and Internet radio is providing listeners with those formats that terrestrial radio no longer wants to provide.

Somebody needs to hit those people over the head with the study that was hidden and, supposedly, destroyed that shows just the opposite of what the FCC and NAB have been saying about needing more deregulation. Can the 'public' prevail over 'big business and big money'? Will the FCC do the right thing? And, why did I just ask two stupid questions?

 

[dbdigital]

This morning I went out to Radio 411 http://www.radio411.com to check on the world of broadcasting and noticed the headline "NAB to FCC: It's Time To Reform Local Ownership Rules". It's unfortunate that radio was deregulated to begin with and has allowed the de-personalization of the business by conglomerates. The NAB is siding with the 'big shots' and saying that the FCC should relax even further the ownership rules.

The NAB states that the FCC should reject the calls for more stringent restrictions on local radio and that the Telecom Act of 1996 has provided programming diversity. They say that terrestrial radio has many more competitors today and needs to be able to compete by allowing more consolidation.

Having been associated with broadcasting for nearly 40 years, I've seen the affect deregulation has had on radio in various markets and how there is very little 'local' to local radio anymore. The NAB no longer represents the local broadcaster...those few that still exist.

It seems to me that the Telecom Act of 1996 was the main influence for technology to find a way to provide what the radio listener wants and can't get through terrestrial radio. However, the 'local' aspect is still missing from that technology. But, at least, satellite and Internet radio is providing listeners with those formats that terrestrial radio no longer wants to provide.

Somebody needs to hit those people over the head with the study that was hidden and, supposedly, destroyed that shows just the opposite of what the FCC and NAB have been saying about needing more deregulation. Can the 'public' prevail over 'big business and big money'? Will the FCC do the right thing? And, why did I just ask two stupid questions?

Yeah, another piece of disingenuous, self-serving, dishonest crud from the NAB. Rehr writes about the need to relax ownership restrictions because of, among other things, the proliferation of internet radio. Of course, he conveniently leaves out that Clear Channel and the other conglomorates are already unmercifully exploiting that technology.

Then he soils his boxers because Sirius is offering Howard Stern for free for a couple of days on the internet and 'what is the FCC going to do about it?'. Here is where he soils it for everyone. The FCC is the worst agency for censoring content on terrestrial radio. Can you imagine them censoring content on the internet, i.e., internet radio? What a catastrophe that would be.

The man is a fool.

db