ClearChannel Complains About XM, Sirius Radio 344
andyring writes "In the latest attempt by a big corporation with a failing business model to win by legislation and not in the marketplace, ClearChannel is whining to the FCC about XM Radio's recent foray into localized traffic and weather reports." Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio.
"Failing business?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't they practically in a monopoly situation and trying to keep it that way?
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Insightful)
XM has many stations that don't even have commercials and cater to any musical taste. In my area we don't even have an FM Jazz station...
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I can't see how the competition from them can be a bad thing for anyone but ClearChannel. Plus, if XM is not regulated by the FCC (I don't know this for sure, can anyone verify), we can get around all the censorship BS going on right now with our lovely FCC....
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Interesting)
All of XM's music stations have no commercials. While the 'talk' stations do. It's kinda funny the commercials mainly on the XM Talk channels are 'spam' like such as life insurance, weight loss, and tax free living.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Informative)
Many of these "network ads" are truely spam-level prices because every single one of the OTA stations are covering the network up with a local ad during that time slot, so only XM listeners end up hearing it. XM might be well served to create some promos for some of their other channels to air in
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Funny)
"Lovely?" Is that some kind of sexual reference?
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Insightful)
You can tune in to local TV free over the airwaves as well, yet somehow, cable and satellite television thrive. You'd be amazed how many people will pay for a bit (or a lot) of additional service and options.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Troll)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Given over to Christian networks? That's interesting. Why would CC hand over conquered stations to Christian networks? Can you site a news article or something on this? I'd love to read it.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Funny)
No, they only own less than 10% (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, they only own less than 10% (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/Subscribers/r a tings
My point is that people keep labelling CC as the one bad mojo when in actuali
Monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, they only own less than 10% (Score:5, Informative)
Those 9 stations, in the ratings, account for about 50% of the listening audience.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't they practically in a monopoly situation and trying to keep it that way?"
Radio ITSELF is a failing business. Arbitron ratings show that people are listening to it less and less, and that the decline has accelerated since the consolidation after the 1996 telecoms act.
What CC fears is competition, of course, so they are trying to use the FCC to prevent one.
I wonder what they think of internet radio, a competitor that is growing faster than satellite...
I, myself run an internet station, hosted at Live 365, and I do live/local shows in the evening on it. http://cat92fm.com I try to actually appeal to a LOCAL audience with it. Though it's more of a hobby than a serious effort, I do have some listeners, and most of them are local, and they listen during the day because the music I play isn't played by the local CC cluster (they own 9 stations in our small merket)
I think CC wants to impose something like what is done to cable TV providers: Federally mandated monopoly. With cable or satellite, you are legally stuck with your local stations, you can't choose a different one, and it's illegal for the provider to sell them to you.
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Failing business?" (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this report [futureofmusic.org] (partly done with the help of Lawrence Lessig), ClearChannel owns 1244 stations and owns 27% of the listenership. They've achieved this largely by playing to the safe music picks in CHR (Contemporary Hit Radio) and other formats, with a focus on crossover music (songs that fit in more than one genre) so they can play the same song on all the different stations they own in the same market.
Or, to put it a different way, ClearChannel is the "McDonalds" of radio. They find safe bland songs within each genre (mostly about sexual attraction), and serve it up constantly, heavily laden with ads. About a quarter of Americans love this format -- just like some people love McDonalds. And they have parlayed that profitability into such a dominant position in radio that they can use their market power to drive even better deals for themselves from the RIAA and musicians.
New songs? Forget it. Unless you have already climbed the dial elsewhere or have big money backing you.
And to think... (Score:5, Insightful)
I got heavily criticised in a story a couple of days ago for saying Clear Channel should get one of those awards for being against free speech.
They may be a private corporation but they have used the FCC and other ways of influencing gov't to make sure that they get to control certain aspects of the airwaves. They may not be John Ashcroft but they are certainly interested in controlling the market and what you hear. =P
Re:And to think... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree Ashcroft is a bit crazy with the censorship but one big difference is that Ashcroft can be asked to resign or be voted out of office (hopefully for someone less restrictive). Monopolies with deep pockets will likely be around for a long time
Re:And to think... (Score:2)
Clear Channel is itself being regulated. All they ask for, is stricter regulation of their competitor. If you accept the limitations on the size and/or content of media companies, Clear Channel's complaints should upset you.
I don't think, this limitations are a good idea at all, so my solution is to unregulate Clear Channel too...
This has nothing to do with the quality of their stations, BTW, which is a separate story altogether.
Re:And to think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not they are competitors from the FCC's point of view is a resonable question. FM radio is liscensed in the 88 to 108 Mhz range (so that's what those numbers on the dial stand for, I seriously never knew). Sattelite radio is licensed in the 2.48 to 2.8 Ghz range. (* [jneuhaus.com])
Sure, from the users point of view they both are just "radio", but Clear Channel is running its radio in the cheap seats under a government sponsered and enforce
Re:You've got it backwards. (Score:2, Funny)
I think we could beat that. I say we start sending shock jocks past satillites. Let them host their shows from the moon, or mars...
Re:You've got it backwards. (Score:2, Redundant)
Thats not quite what Ithiel Pool argued. The argument made in Technologies of Freedom was that media regulation should be prohibited under the first ammendment, it is a license on the press. The loophole that the FCC uses is the fact that radio spectrum is 'scarce'. Pool showed that
Re:You've got it backwards. (Score:2)
Yes they do you ignorant AC:
Howard Stern (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Howard Stern (Score:2)
But hey, IANA FCC censor.
Re:Howard Stern (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Howard Stern (Score:3, Informative)
In recent weeks Howard has actually been considering moving the show to XM if/when things hit the fan and he gets yanked from the public airwaves.
I'm just hoping he hangs in there until the election so we can vote that SOB Bush out and see about getting some of our rights back from the corpor
Competition is good for radio.... (Score:2, Informative)
Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio.
Competition is good for radio... because it's bad for Clearchannel.
Re:Competition is good for radio.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This might get modded as off topic, but I'm gonna do it anyways. People need to understand what a bunch of bastards Clear Channel and the NAB are and some semi related background info on their past behavior might be useful.
The real travesty in radio is that the only real ownership liberalization in many years was stifled at the request of the NAB and Clear Channel - Low Power FM stations which can be licensed and brought on line at very low cost compared to a "regular" station. This would have allowed normal folk with little capital to began legally broadcasting with decent range and signal - somethingthe NAB and Queer Channel didnt want.
Becuase of the NAB and Queer Channel the 1000 watt provision of the LPFM proposal was yanked due to what turned out to be a bogus phony "interference" concern that was later DISPROVEN by the the FCC's own hired examiners. The 1000 watt proposal was killed becuase in many cases it would have allowed station ranges to be competitive with their CC corporate owned stations.
The LPFM proposal if it had been left intact and not gutted by Queer Channel and the NAB lobbyists would have done more to revolutionize radio than satellite radio - becuase there would have been thousands of new voices on the air in every city and town. You bet yer ass they dont want competition from anyone, and most of all form ordinary citizens, to whom the PUBLIC airwaves are SUPPOSED to belong. Of course they are going to whine to the FCC - it's gotten the desired result before for them....
So of course now the gutted remnants of the LPFM ( cumbersome application process, limited licenses to be issued, only 10 and 100 watt power limits, too low to have any range ) are not having much effect. Geee, wonder why?
Lets hope the satellite companies fight Clear Channel with everything they have. If this rant was too off topic, sorry, but I gotta get my ya-ya's out sometimes, boss. The way they sliced and diced LPFM really pissed me off royal. Can ya tell? :D
Oh noes (Score:3, Funny)
When being beaten by a competitor, you have three choices. Bitch, moan, and complain to the government about it.
FM is Going the way of AM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FM is Going the way of AM (Score:2)
Re:FM is Going the way of AM (Score:2)
Me too. I am mainly an AM listener, because I love talk radio. If I want music, I have my 20GB Nomad player in the car.
I don't think it's AM or FM that is doomed, but it's MUSIC RADIO itself that is doomed to die off.
15-20 stations in a market just can't compete with the greater variety that portable MP3, satellite, and internet radio offer.
Internet radio is ALSO a threat. As internet becomes more and more unwired, the day may come soon when we can listen to
Re:FM is Going the way of AM (Score:2)
I'm happy for you that XM works for you, but I'm a bit surprised you got modded +5 Informative/Interesting for that.
Are you (and the mods) saying that XM's traffic and weather being better is a sustainable differentiator? If that's really a big reason, it's not like XM has some secret inside info to weather and
Re:FM is Going the way of AM (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the "local traffic and weather" channels on XM now are actually national channels. That is to say, you can hear a Boston traffic report in Los Angeles perfectly clear. Not sure why anybody would want to, but it's there if you want it. All of the land-based repeaters are relaying all of the channels, even the ones intended for far-away cities. Therefore, XM is complying with the letter of the agreement just fine.
However, the NAB is trying to say that these "local" services violate the rules just to make life harder for XM.
What *are* you smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know a single person who listens to XM radio. I listen to FM (NPR).
I seriously, seriously doubt that any satellite radio will make serious inroads into ordinary radio listeners, FM or AM, while it costs money. You don't need to pay a cent to listen to FM radio (except the tiny cost of the radio itself). That's a pretty big advantage over XM.
Also, listening to NPR stations, I don't get commercials (at least, I certainly wouldn't call the regular announcers calmly reading the sponsors' slogans co
Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Other major XM shareholders include radio giant Clear Channel Communications, Inc."
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Its rather simple really. A subscription costs X amount of money, and its a fixed number, sure thats great for paying the bills, but the only way to increase profit is to get additional subscribers, or by reducing overhead. Since the hardware utilized is rather expensive, the fastest way to eliminate overhead is through payroll, I don't see anyone taking a paycut in order to turn a profit.
Advertising on the other hand is on a sliding
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:2)
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:2)
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who have poor opinions of Microsoft's business practices, ClearChannel's doings are roughly similar, except they want to control not just what software you run, but also the computer on which you use said software, where said computer can be used and what the software will stop you from doing if it doesn't think what you're doing with it is decent.
Re:Why is CC doing this when they own part of XM? (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit the nail right on the head. Broadcasters basically think at this point that they cannot safely air Howard Stern, Bubba The Love Sponge or any other similar program without fear of large FCC fines. However, right now those shows can find a safe haven on XM and Sirius with no FCC content restrictions at all. XM and Sirius might sensor their "family level" channels on their own, but Playboy Radio being a premium channel can do absolutely anything they want.
The broadcasters see this as a popular content type that they're about to lose access to about to be used against them. They want the same standards applied to the satellite broadcasters...
In the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In the UK (Score:2)
Re:In the UK (Score:2)
Because governments answer to the people, while corporations answer to their shareholders. Supposedly, at least.
Ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
XM (Score:2, Insightful)
Why focus on Clear Channel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why focus on Clear Channel? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm absolutely sure it was done over Clear Channel's strident objections, too.
Get real: This kind of anti-competitive crap is almost always done through industry associations. It makes better PR and helps to legitimize it to people who don't know any better.
Re:Why focus on Clear Channel? (Score:3, Informative)
Clear Channel is practically out of the NAB because to put it mildly, their interests are often contradictory to the interests of small station owners. They just don't fit in with the club anymore.
URL.... what??? (Score:5, Funny)
Now it is all starting to make some sense ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people wondered why Clear Channel was so quick to dump the Stern show in six markets without putting up any kind of a fight.
While at first they presented themselves as being truly ashamed of the "Indecency" over their airwaves, it seems now that they were supporting the FCC in a very public arena so they could work themselves into a position where they can influence FCC policies. It probably doesn't hurt that they are a huge corporate donor to the Bush campaign.
On a recent Stern show episode, Howard suggested holding concerts in major Clear Channel markets to combat their growing power. With this latest news we have all the more reason not to support them and their anti-competitive policies.
For more information go here. [howardstern.com]
Re:Now it is all starting to make some sense ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clear Channel doesn't hold any political views at all that don't directly concern its business. However, a certain class of Clear Channel's employees are often hired because of their political views and ability to communicate them. Clear Channel employs and dis
Re:Now it is all starting to make some sense ... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh really?! And you know this how?
Open Secrets [opensecrets.org] tells us that CC gave $209,000 to republicans in 2000-2001.
They have pulled ads criticizing Republicans. [clarionledger.com]
You may remember this:
Radio Killed the Radio Star (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad they can't argue on the aspects of quality programming. Broadcast Radio quality has fallen to the point where I simply don't listen to it. Local traffic? Ha, it's usually old information. I get better information via my cell phone. Quality music? Rrrrright.... if you like to hear the same seven songs played hundreds of times within a month. I'll play my own music - at least then I hear something other than those 7 (once-good, now-annoying) songs.
Clearly broadcast radio quality has fallen substantially, and Satellite is quickly filling the void. I don't have it yet, but I'm thinking about it.
Re:Radio Killed the Radio Star (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, one of the things that is annoying regular radio broadcasters is that either XM or Serius (can't remember which, or if it was both) got special permission from the FCC to put microrepeaters in buildings in built up areas. (one repeater can cover a fairly large area) This allows people to still recieve even in areas with tall buildings if one of these is arround. The reason the radio broadcasters are annoyed is because the repeaters (being about the size of a desk, and having no external antennas and is installed inside of a building) were allowed to bypass local red tape for installation. AKA they only needed to get federal approval, not local.
Re:Radio Killed the Radio Star (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, we're going to tell you about how awful commercial-free music is... by running commercials...
That's funny. (Score:3, Informative)
And as for listening to satellite radio, I'll take Sirius anyday. They don't have the annoying Clearchannel DJ's and the "every stations sounds the same" Clearchannel effect (have they patented that yet?).
The FCC is evolving (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, its a bit of a conspiracy theory, or at least its damn cynical, but just look at the slew of recent rulings favoring not what is best for Americans, but what is best for the corporation.
The difficult thing for me to swallow, is that Clearchannel is not so different from the sattelite services, in that 99.9% of Clearchannel programming, including traffic, weather and news, does not originate anywhere near the locality where it is transmitted. In Essence, Clearchannel is a sattelite broadcaster that uses conventional radio transmitter for the last-mile service delivery.
ClearChannel... Isn't this the "network" that.... (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately in the Minneapolis, MN area we do have a reasonably good classic rock station that is not ClrCnl, which has locked out the ClrCnl morning shows. And for local traffic, one of the local Public Broadcast Radio stations provides updates every 10 min during rush hour, and actually has a great Jazz lineup.
ClrChn has attempted to "compete" in the Jazz market with their "Smooth Jazz" channel. I am not what you might call a conisour of Jazz, but I think their playlist is garbage.
I have listened to a couple of XM sat channels, but since I don't own a receiver (yet) I can't make any claims about it.
Radio stations mentioned...
KQRS - http://www.92kqrs.com/ - 92.5 FM
KBEM - http://www.jazz88fm.com/ - 88.5 FM - online
CC-SmoothJazz - 100.5 FM
There are a couple of other locally produced stations in the area. Since I like the Jazz88FM lineup, I have not listened to them.
For those concerned, KQRS is owned by Disney, but the Morning Show should be listened to a few times before you decide to let your kids listen in.
Re:ClearChannel... Isn't this the "network" that.. (Score:2)
Corporations and New Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
I get tired of corporations complaining about new technology. Clearly XM and Sirius are both new technologies and are the wave of the future. Remember when t.v. cable was new and all these same arguements were presented? For ClearChannel to be competitive over the long haul, it needs to get off its rear and create a satelite network of its own or get its shows carried on the various satelite radio providers.
Passing legislation such as this is stupid to put it bluntly. It will not change anything. If passed, in 10 years, we will be back to hearing the same arguments and eventually, the satelite providers will be providing whatever they choose anyway with or without ClearChannel's participation -- just as cable carries your local t.v. stations. In fact, because of cable the television stations do not spend lots of money putting in new translator stations to obtain expanded signal coverage and instead rely on the satelite or cable providers to carry their local broadcasts.
Here's MY playlist (Score:5, Funny)
Clear Channel contends that patiotism demands that traffic reports only recommend right turns and not any of those pro-Dixie Chicks, gay marriage-ing, terr'ist aiding lefty turns.
As for the weather, well, Clear Channel says it's sunny days with n'ary a terr'ist in the skies for all God's chilluns under GW Bush, and there'll be pie in the sky when you die [fortunecity.com], and you that ain't got rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him / And high office relations [bobdylan.com], you can join the army, if you fail
But I saw you don't need a weather man/ To know which way the wind blows [bobdylan.com]. I say pretty soon it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall [bobdylan.com]
Cause I say the airwaves don't belong to a company in Texas, I say that this land belongs to you and me. [geocities.com]
And I hope my playlist here (figurtively) kills Fascists [subvertise.org]
Re:Here's MY playlist (Score:3, Funny)
So how do you explain 43 pretty patriotic guys going out on a Sunday afternoon and spending 4 hours making left turns?
Though you may have hit on why Clear Channel doesn't carry MRN/PRN.
Big dose of STFU is in order (Score:2)
a little extra info. (Score:3, Interesting)
ClearChannel can kiss my *@&%! (Score:2)
I subscribed to Sirius to get away from BS like theirs. The local traffic is fantastic for LA. Before they added that, I got all my traffic off KNX 1070 AM, which is an Infinity Radio, NOT ClearChannel station (I know, not much better)
CC is crooked (Score:2, Flamebait)
They bought their way into the position they're in today by paying off Bush and that Michael Powell. Is anyone surprised that they whine about XM?
In NC, CC dominates the FM radio dial. Other than WCPE and college stations, there's CC. How bad do they suck? So bad that in the past couple of years, lots of wonderful Pioneer and Marantz Super Receiver of the 70s are being sold dirt cheap.
Michael Powell is at the center of it all. This is crooked politics at it's worst. I hope a terrible fate befalls him suc
Re:CC is crooked (Score:2)
XM worries... by npr stations too (Score:2, Insightful)
clearchannel adverts misleading (Score:2, Interesting)
This disgusts me (Score:4, Interesting)
This type of blind support of the special interest is What Is Wrong With The System (TM). I have been an XM subscriber for about four months. I signed up just before the local stations had ever been announced, but I can tell you, had I know they were offered, I would have signed up even faster. Last week I drove back down to Florida from Maryland down I-95, and I used their Baltimore, D.C. and Tampa channels to anticipate upcoming weather and traffic conditions. If you're not from the local area, you have no idea what AM / FM stations broadcast what type of content, and even then you have to shit through three to five minutes of mindless advertising (ever notice that the majority of ClearChannel ads hawk the same kind of stuff sold in spam?) before there's even a chance of lucking into a traffic or weather broadcast. The XM local traffic and weather stations are extremely helpful and an absolute blessing to frequent travelers.
I love XM because it puts choice of content back in the hands of the user. If I want to hear talk radio, I've got 20+ channels any time I want them, right, left or "neutral." If I want to hear just about ANY type of music, from jazz to death metal, it's always on and commercial free, and the quality is way higher than FM.
Fuck ClearChannel and their shitty ad-supported big media content. I hope they get run out of business, but no doubt their store-bought suckling government officials will shield them from such a fate and punish the sat radio providers accordingly. :(
someone explain please (Score:4, Insightful)
"youre not allowed to talk about the traffic or weather"
"why not?"
"because..."
???*confused*
Re:someone explain please (Score:4, Informative)
but why was that in the original license agreement in the first place? whats wrong with offering local content?
The problem with offering local content is that local content is now the only reason to listen to regular radio over satellite, subscription fees aside. The standard radio stations (including ClearChannel) make their money with advertising revenue, and they can only sell that advertising space if the can guarantee that X number of listeners will hear that ad when it plays. If the satellite companies start giving local news and traffic reports, there will no longer be any reason to not spend the $20 monthly fee: satellite radio has the same music, the same talk shows, no commercials, and now, local information. The AM/FM radio companies are trying to use legislation to preserve their business model. They know that they are losing listeners, and instead of changing their business plan to match the market, they instead use their large legal leverage to bully the competition into not changing the market.
From a third-party point of view, there's nothing wrong with offering local content. From the point of view of the AM/FM media companies, it's forcing them to change, and that's painful. So they try to legislate their way around it.
Pot calling kettle black (Score:4, Insightful)
Before deregulation local radio stations were pretty much just that. Many were locally owned, had local programming staff and even those that were owned by outside interests functioned pretty much autonomosly.
In Minneapolis (and many other cities) Clear Channel has bought up most of the more popular stations and consolidated their operations. The different stations share sales staffs, engineering staffs, and administrative staff and in some cases even on-air personalities. Their programming decisions come down from the corporate level.
Not all of this is bad. There are improvments in effiency and reduced labor costs and other business related benefits. I have no problem with that.
What does bother me is that it makes it difficult for new artists to get airplay. When the programming decisions are handed down by such a select few people for the whole country, they only pick from a stable of artists that are already established or have the right "influence."
It is like the difference between going to Mc Donalds and going to a mom & pop locally owned cafe. You aren't gonna find any local specialties and while you can probably find something you like at McDonalds, you won't get anything really great either!
Re:Pot calling kettle black (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Clear Channel and their ilk have already largely nationalized their supposedly "local" content, their argument against satellite radio doing the same thing is completely without merit.
Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon now (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, it is not Clear Channel but National Association of Broadcasters that filed the complaint (contrary to what the original posting says) which Clear Channel is one of many members (as someone pointed out, they only got about 10% of the radio market).
Also, this request isn't that far out there. After all, local radio and TV stations have to pay fees and licenses to transmit locally, so why shouldn't satellite based radio
Clearchannel is just a shill for Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
And in related news... (Score:5, Funny)
* AT&T files a complaint with the FCC claiming that Verizon promotes confusing cell phone plans
* Conservatives complain about liberal media taking over television and radio
* Hummvee company complains that the Toyota Prius is "too gay" to be allowed on highways
* Republicans cry "foul" over moveon.org PAC
* Spammers decry latest anti-spam legislation
* MTV files complaint against cartoon network citing inappropriate programming for young people
* Sony files suit against the makers of pong saying it infringes on a patent they hold relative to Everquest
* DMCA seeks to expands its powers to incorporate people thinking about movies as being a violation of copyright.
* Comcast sues ESPN, citing that the cable channel is "too appealing" to some consumers and detracts from their 14 cubic zirconia shopping channels.
* Bush holds a press conference
Clear Channel owns a stake in XM Radio (Score:4, Informative)
= 9J =
yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, I don't even listen to radio while I'm doing $activity. I use my $mp3_player_brand or cd player.
ClearChannel opposes news reports! (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of whining to the government about their perceived competition, why don't they start a competing satellite service? They might be forced to learn a thing or two about what the listeners want instead of pushing the same tired station "formats".
Just what business model is failing? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you think of it, XM and Sirius are the popup blockers of radio.
Problem with XM and the like (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:nope (Score:2, Funny)
5 out of 5, Spain just change governments.
Re:nope (Score:3, Funny)
5 out of 5, Spain just change governments."
6 out of 6, rogue state Taiwan backs away from Bush. Better add them to the list.
Precisely (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who's got an inkling of historical perspective will and do realize that we're at a pretty fucked up point in history and god help us if there's another 4 years of the Bush regime.
For real man, you are dead on: the real enemies of America are in the White House right now. Fuckin eh!
The Sig is the point of his post (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the Sig was the whole point of his post.
(18 words in the Sig, only 13 in the post, the Sig WAS the message he's pushing).
He made a short comment simply repeating the stories angle, followed by a misleading political statement as a sig.
Do you think he got 5 points for restating the competition angle already mentioned in the original story? Probably not, Bush supporters mod him up to push the sig message.
From the story:
"Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio. "
From his comment:
"XM and Sirius ARE good for competition, that's why ClearChannel doesn't like them"
Not insightful.
Re:More Yellow Journalism on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Well seeing as how Clear Channel is the largest radio broadcaster and owns 1200 radio stations in the US, it is pretty safe to say they dominate the NAB, especially in issues related to radio. I am sure that is why Reuters inserted their name into the rpess release.
"Secondly, how is local radio a failed business model? "
Local radio may not be a failed bussiness model but it is very well documented that most clear channel's stations have been steadily losing audiences since being taken over by clear channel. Thus, clear channel is a failed bussiness model. And quite fittingly, their stock prices have been steadily decreasing ever since they obtained this large number of stations (around 2000).
The fact that satelite radio exists is further proof for the bad quality of local radio. Think about it -- people install additional devices in their cars and buy monthly subscriptions to get satelite radio, while they can get local radio for free. Well local radio must really suck.
Re:Pretty sad (Score:4, Interesting)
The worst I've heard on Sirius music streams are the DJs talking about what else there is to listen to on other streams, including then the occasional joke about other streams ("This is the hard rock stream! If you want pussy rock, go over to stream 9!"). In general there's nobody there telling me what I like or what I should be listening to, which is all broadcast radio does these days.
When next you listen to an FM station keep track of how many times they tell you that you're listening to the songs you love (and "none of the songs you don't") or how often they play recordings of other people talking about how great the station is.
(Hell, I still don't see the point in "HD radio." Why pay for better-sounding car commercials?)
Personally, I'm happier with the satellite radio philosophy where the paying subscriber is the ultimate arbiter of what they want or do not want to hear. Not the advertisers, not the government, and usually not even the record companies (Sirius is making it much easier for me to find CDs published by non-RIAA members).
Out of curiousity, is there anybody out there who had been a customer of either XM or Sirus and actually left? Like the commercials put out by the FM/AM broadcasters suggest?
Re:fair market (Score:3, Informative)
There are a few reasons.
First off, DirecTV and Dish aren't just putting out local information, they're re-broadcasting local VHF/UHF stations, basicly stuff you could get with some rabbit ears. Sirius and XM are putting out their own content for the local markets, with their own traffic and weather people.
Secondly, DirecTV and Dish are using both special satellite t