Why are politicians trying to harm satellite radio?

[eGillCVI]

Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a matter of importance.<blockquote>Bill Blocking Local Material On Satellite Radio Introduced In Senate
Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast emergency and other services." The bill slaps further restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite systems to broadcast local material on national channels, as they do now with traffic and weather. The bill is similar to H.R. 998, which is making its way through Congress.

A statement from NAB Pres./CEO DAVID REHR lauded the new bill, saying "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS– with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and having failed as a national programming service– are skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses.

"With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to educating lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local radio every day in communities all across AMERICA."</blockquote>

 

[staticradio]

> Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other
> than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's
> paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a
> matter of importance.
>
> Bill Blocking Local Material On Satellite Radio Introduced In Senate
>
> Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT
> LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to
> launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast
> emergency and other services." The bill slaps further
> restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local
> programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding
> to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite
> systems to broadcast local material on national channels, as
> they do now with traffic and weather. The bill is similar to
> H.R. 998, which is making its way through Congress.
>
> A statement from NAB Pres./CEO DAVID REHR lauded the new
> bill, saying "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS–
> with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and
> having failed as a national programming service– are
> skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This
> bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses.
>
> "With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a
> companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to educating
> lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local radio
> every day in communities all across AMERICA."

Having failed? XM being out only 4 1/2 years with 6 million subs and Sirius for 4 years with 3.5 subs doesn't sound that bad considering DirecTV is 12+ years along, and only has 12 million subs (myself included). It looks as though the NAB is lining pockets in Congress, and certain broadcasters are lining the NAB's pockets.

As for 'local' content, most of the commercial stations here in the twin cities are somewhat decent for information, bunk for music. IMHO, only KBEM, KCMP, KMOJ, KFAI, KUOM, and WMGT are worth it for music in TC.

 

[rcolbert]

> Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other
> than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's
> paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a
> matter of importance.Bill Blocking Local Material On
> Satellite Radio Introduced In Senate
> Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT
> LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to
> launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast
> emergency and other services." The bill slaps further
> restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local
> programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding
> to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite
> systems to broadcast local material on national channels, as
> they do now with traffic and weather. The bill is similar to
> H.R. 998, which is making its way through Congress.
>
> A statement from NAB Pres./CEO DAVID REHR lauded the new
> bill, saying "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS–
> with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and
> having failed as a national programming service– are
> skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This
> bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses.
>
> "With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a
> companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to educating
> lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local radio
> every day in communities all across AMERICA."


While I do not agree that they are failing, I really don't care about the "local" content (outside of sports.

 

[Slinky]

> I wonder who's
> paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a
> matter of importance.

Well, I think you just answered your own question.

The thing is, though, restricting what XM does with its repeaters doesn't really hurt them. It's not feasible for them to use the repeaters separately, because the repeater network just doesn't cover that wide an area. Given the small numbers, it's hard to see how advertisers would benefit.

With respect to the FCC "rulemaking" about locally-targeted content, I doubt we'll see the FCC choose to start regulating where a broadcast can target. How do you even enforce that? If O&A mention New York, does that make it a locally targeted broadcast? The FCC would be dealing with a regulation nightmare.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

> Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other
> than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's
> paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a
> matter of importance.Bill Blocking Local Material On
> Satellite Radio Introduced In Senate

Everything politicians do is to increase their power. That is teh purpose served by this.

It also gives them a starting point to regulation.

 

[Number_Six]

> > Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other
>
> > than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's
>
> > paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is
> a
> > matter of importance.
> >
> > Bill Blocking Local Material On Satellite Radio Introduced
> In Senate
> >
> > Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT
> > LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to
> > launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast
> > emergency and other services." The bill slaps further
> > restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local
>
> > programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking
> proceeding
> > to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite
> > systems to broadcast local material on national channels,
> as
> > they do now with traffic and weather. The bill is similar
> to
> > H.R. 998, which is making its way through Congress.
> >
> > A statement from NAB Pres./CEO DAVID REHR lauded the new
> > bill, saying "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS–
>
> > with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and
> > having failed as a national programming service– are
> > skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This
> > bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses.
>
> >
> > "With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a
>
> > companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to
> educating
> > lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local
> radio
> > every day in communities all across AMERICA."
>
> Having failed? XM being out only 4 1/2 years with 6 million
> subs and Sirius for 4 years with 3.5 subs doesn't sound that
> bad considering DirecTV is 12+ years along, and only has 12
> million subs (myself included). It looks as though the NAB
> is lining pockets in Congress, and certain broadcasters are
> lining the NAB's pockets.
>
> As for 'local' content, most of the commercial stations here
> in the twin cities are somewhat decent for information, bunk
> for music. IMHO, only KBEM, KCMP, KMOJ, KFAI, KUOM, and
> WMGT are worth it for music in TC.
>

XM and Sirius are anything but failed businesses. They apparently are following a growth-oriented business model in which being in the black is secondary to growing their customer base. Amazon did the same thing a few years ago. Now, they have a huge customer base and are making a profit. [As an aside, I remember standing in the office of one of our company's senior engineers about six years ago as he confidently predicted that Amazon would go out of business. He was laid off about two years after making this prediction...perhaps he got a job with Amazon?]

Evidently, NAB feels that terrestial radio cannot compete with satellite radio, and it is looking for help from politicians to alter the playing field. Whatever happens, I hope they continue to air those laughable commercials in which people talk about the evils of satellite radio.

 

[LA_Guy]

Why?

Simple: The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) are the biggest lobbiests (read: BRIBERS) of Congress. They line the pockets of the politicians and the politicians say: "yup, yup, yup" whenever they want them to!

Remember: We in the USA have the BEST government that money can buy!



> Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other
> than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's
> paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a
> matter of importance.Bill Blocking Local Material On
> Satellite Radio Introduced In Senate
> Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT
> LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to
> launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast
> emergency and other services." The bill slaps further
> restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local
> programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding
> to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite
> systems to broadcast local material on national channels, as
> they do now with traffic and weather. The bill is similar to
> H.R. 998, which is making its way through Congress.
>
> A statement from NAB Pres./CEO DAVID REHR lauded the new
> bill, saying "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS–
> with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and
> having failed as a national programming service– are
> skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This
> bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses.
>
> "With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a
> companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to educating
> lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local radio
> every day in communities all across AMERICA."
>

 

[SCRHack]

Confused

>
In Senate Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast emergency and other services." The bill slaps further restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite systems to broadcast local material on national channels,as they do now with traffic and weather.
>

Ok, I don't see this as a big deal at all. I'm actually all for it. (One it protects MY job.) Two, we all complain about bandwith and sound quality (which I honestly have never noticed cept that I have to turn up my volume real loud to get to a decent level on some stations) wouldn't losing the traffic service help this out immensely?

I don't think we should get rid of the emergency broadcast that would be stupid and short sighted.

 

[Ai4i]

Re: Confused

> "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS– with nearly $1 billion in
> combined losses last year and having failed as a national programming service–> ..."

Such being the case, it seems clear that the two companies will soon be out of business and the NAB should be more concerned with threats that will be around for a longer time.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>

 

[Slinky]

Re: Confused

> Ok, I don't see this as a big deal at all. I'm actually all
> for it. (One it protects MY job.) Two, we all complain about
> bandwith and sound quality (which I honestly have never
> noticed cept that I have to turn up my volume real loud to
> get to a decent level on some stations) wouldn't losing the
> traffic service help this out immensely?

Maybe, but that should be for the satellite services themselves to decide.

Do you really want the government telling XM and Sirius what content they can and can't put on the air?

As for your job, I wouldn't worry about being replaced by XM/Sirius traffic anytime soon. The stations that provide the most local info are the ones least vulnerable to satellite services. While the traffic/weather stations are useful, they don't fully replace a local news station.

 

[Kent]

Re: Confused

> Ok, I don't see this as a big deal at all. I'm actually all
> for it. (One it protects MY job.) Two, we all complain about
> bandwith and sound quality (which I honestly have never
> noticed cept that I have to turn up my volume real loud to
> get to a decent level on some stations) wouldn't losing the
> traffic service help this out immensely?

The traffic services occupy enough bandwidth for only about two music channels. So, it wouldn't help the sound quality out a whole lot.

Personally, I wouldn't miss those channels if they went away. Both services do a poor job at traffic, at least in the St Louis area, when compared to local radio. Not to mention I don't like changing channels to hear traffic when it's bumper-to-bumper and moving between 75 and 80 mph. However, I'd rather the market tell XM and Sirius not to air the traffic services as opposed to Congress doing so.

 

[apco25]

Re: Confused

> >
> In Senate Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and
> TRENT LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC
> to launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast
> emergency and other services." The bill slaps further
> restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local
> programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding
> to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite
> systems to broadcast local material on national channels,as
> they do now with traffic and weather.
> >
>
> Ok, I don't see this as a big deal at all. I'm actually all
> for it. (One it protects MY job.) Two, we all complain about
> bandwith and sound quality (which I honestly have never
> noticed cept that I have to turn up my volume real loud to
> get to a decent level on some stations) wouldn't losing the
> traffic service help this out immensely?
>
> I don't think we should get rid of the emergency broadcast
> that would be stupid and short sighted.
>

Finally you posted something right....Wow!

 

[Spruceman]

Sure the traffic and weather is information ABOUT conditions in a locality; but that doesn't mean the listener base is only that locality. If I in Washington DC is about to drive to New York or Philadelphia, I sure as hell want to know if some NYC or Phila area roadway will be closed for construction or for a hazmat spill, just as I want to know what the weather's gonna be there -- I would want to know that well before I'm in range of the very few "local" stations in those cities covering those conditions.

If so-called local broadcasters (and fewer and fewer stations are either locally owned or provide local content) can't compete with sat radio, then to hell with them. So called local radio has paved its own road to hell with its mix of noise music and 30 min commercials per hour..not to mention so many stations that put absolutely no programming pertinent to its city of license--(Aren't most stations just putting out fare they receive themselves from satellite?). Most stations have gone so rotten that their frequencies would be better used for wireless hi-speed internet so folks could stream audio into their cars from the Internet. Even reports of folks' pieces of lint in their pockets would be more useful than whats on most broadcast radio stations.
************************************************************************


> Look at this crap. Does this bill serve any purpose other
> than trying to do harm to satellite radio? I wonder who's
> paying these piece-of-crap politicians to act like this is a
> matter of importance.Bill Blocking Local Material On
> Satellite Radio Introduced In Senate
> Sens. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME), MAX BAUCUS (D-MT), and TRENT
> LOTT (R-MS) have introduced a bill requiring the FCC to
> launch a rulemaking to "preserve local radio broadcast
> emergency and other services." The bill slaps further
> restrictions on satellite radio's ability to provide local
> programming, and makes the FCC hold a rulemaking proceeding
> to examine whether to continue to allow the satellite
> systems to broadcast local material on national channels, as
> they do now with traffic and weather. The bill is similar to
> H.R. 998, which is making its way through Congress.
>
> A statement from NAB Pres./CEO DAVID REHR lauded the new
> bill, saying "It is crystal clear that both XM and SIRIUS–
> with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and
> having failed as a national programming service– are
> skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This
> bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses.
>
> "With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a
> companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to educating
> lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local radio
> every day in communities all across AMERICA."
>

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Re: Confused

> Personally, I wouldn't miss those channels if they went
> away. Both services do a poor job at traffic, at least in
> the St Louis area, when compared to local radio. Not to
> mention I don't like changing channels to hear traffic when
> it's bumper-to-bumper and moving between 75 and 80 mph.
> However, I'd rather the market tell XM and Sirius not to air
> the traffic services as opposed to Congress doing so.

When you say "market", do you mean the listeners or the local governments?

I agree they are crap wihen it comes to reporting anything (in DFW). They can't pronounce the streets and the info is half-assed and the weather is never accurate. something like the actual current conditions are 75 and sunny and they will come on with "today's forecast is rainy with a high of 68."

 

[Kent]

Re: Confused

> When you say "market", do you mean the listeners or the
> local governments?

I mean the marketplace, i.e. the customers, potential customers, etc. I'm in favor of the absolute least amount of governmental regulation possible.

 

[Sparrowbush]

When there was an issue with a dam having a break near my residence, my "free, local" radio station did not properly inform my community that the danger had passed, according to the local county emergency management office. What "invaluable role" are they talking about from local radio?

XM has played a much larger role in my radio listening over the last two years. I am disgusted the government is pulling such nonsense.

>
> "With introduction of today’s legislation – coupled with a
> companion bill in the House - NAB looks forward to educating
> lawmakers on the invaluable role played by free, local radio
> every day in communities all across AMERICA."
>

 

[The_Drake]

I think that for the most part all politicians dislike things they cannot control. They like to exhert influence and power, as evidenced by the hawkish way they ride free radio and TV.

Regulating satellite and gaining control over it would be a fine feather in the cap of any of these politicians. I can see "filth crusaders" salivating over this.

The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be a ton of disagreement on this issue. In an election year, something like this is likely to get bipartisian support. No one wants to vote no to the bill and have a commercial run against them that says they "promote filth and smut".

 

[GRAYWOLF]

> I think that for the most part all politicians dislike
> things they cannot control. They like to exhert influence
> and power, as evidenced by the hawkish way they ride free
> radio and TV.
>
> Regulating satellite and gaining control over it would be a
> fine feather in the cap of any of these politicians. I can
> see "filth crusaders" salivating over this.
>
> The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be a ton of
> disagreement on this issue. In an election year, something
> like this is likely to get bipartisian support. No one wants
> to vote no to the bill and have a commercial run against
> them that says they "promote filth and smut".
>
We need candidates that have the balls to stand up and say "Politician XYZ voted in favor of all these laws that are unconstitutional!" Unfortunately, we won't see that because it would be an easy and clear case of pot calling kettle as soon as candidate 1 had a record.