Printable View
The public interest set-aside should be “open access”: free to the public and to content producers. All satellite radio owners should receive this content without a subscription fee and the content should be distributed without fee by XM-Sirius.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520034745
I cannot believe this....goes right along with Tylers article today...they want commercial radio and sirius has to supply it whether the customer pays their bill or not! Unreal!
Did you put the wrong link here by mistake? I don't see any of this in the link. They want the hd chip, 25% sprectrum put aside and they don't want the tv counted as sprectrum.
I don't see any of this in there---The public interest set-aside should be “open access”: free to the public and to content producers. All satellite radio owners should receive this content without a subscription fee and the content should be distributed without fee by XM-Sirius.
So, basically you support the FCC taking away 7-10 Billion dollars worth of spectrum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett1965
How did you come to that conclusion? Of course not. I was pointing out that the link must be wrong. It states none of what he claims. We all make mistakes from time to time.
DUDE! The link works fine. Where in the link does it say ANYTHING that you claim it says? I'm all for the merger and hope we get a yes Monday morning so help me see what you state is in that link.:confused:
Again, none of this is in there---------------The public interest set-aside should be “open access”: free to the public and to content producers. All satellite radio owners should receive this content without a subscription fee and the content should be distributed without fee by XM-Sirius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett1965
So it would be okay for a minority group to clone the subscription channels with their spectrum?
Is this site for pumpers only? If so I'll leave now. Someone had to read the link and see it does not state what the original claim is. And the answer is NO to your question, buddy. I am just trying to get factual info. Not blind pumping.
There were 2 filings and I did put the wrong link. I have now corrected it, sorry for the confusion...please feel free to have a look...I was extremely busy yesterday trying to get a video uploaded while trying to post stuff...
Isn't the public access set-aside different than the minority ownership issue? Public access is going to be the C-SPAN, educational, etc. part of the combined company. Minority ownership is going to be leased airspace. I don't think that phrase is referencing "commercial radio".Quote:
Originally Posted by crfceo
Thanks CRF, I thought I was going crazy there for a minute.
There is no way that they should even be considering this. It's nuts! What will they think of next? The only thing I see Mel bending on at this point is the set aside, and IMHO we will probably end up at 15% total. What I don't know and maybe you have an answer to is, Will Sirius get paid for giving up these channels by way of leasing them out? Or do you think it will end up being a freebie? I can't seem to find a real answer for this question. If when it's all said and done we get the merger OK AND we get to make some dough through leasing out stations that will be redundant anyway then it's all good, right?
I think the set aside will involve lease payments. I worry that they could kll sat rad with them...especially if 60 channels are boadcasting free. Few would subcribe under such conditions, especially in a tough economy. I read a very good opinion, I wish I could give proper credit, that suggests no duplicate content could be allowed on the set aside...meaning they couldn't put on ad supported rock, country, bluegrass stations, etc. The channels would have to be more like pbs in their content. An anti-competive measure should be considered with any set aside..
I was under the impression that the proposed 4% for minority owned stations was going to be free (non-leased), but that you had to have a subscription to hear them. So if someone actually wanted these stations they would have to pay for at least a minimum package. The "owners" of these channels would then use commercial advertising to get their money. (Tyler wrote about this before, I believe.) Because they won't be available w/o a subscription, they theoretically add some value... or at least they won't take much away.
I'm not too worried about this. Whatever deal XM and Sirius agree to will be at least good. I'm hoping for better than good, but I believe that they have future plans that will make all of this seem trivial down the road.
you are referring to the sirius offer...the opposing offer is very different
Isn't APM's "offer" just more NAB talking points? How is this an offer? I see it as another desperate attempt from the NAB to try and slow things down. Or at least set up their likely attempt at a lawsuit to reverse the decision.
I assume that Sirius' offer is the one that Martin and McDowell are in favor of. So we only need Tate to go along. And based on her bio, I am hoping that she would see this offer as more charitable, since it doesn't require the minorities to lease, which would open a whole new can of worms... What if they can't generate enough revenue to pay? How do you determine what the spectrum is worth? and so on.
The companies and shareholders paid for the spectrum. I don't think that a real republican would want to be seen as taking it away. I see the 4% give away like Microsoft donating software to low-income schools.
Yeah, this absolutely has to be a condition regardless of the amount of spectrum, if this is not a condition they are opening themselves up for abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by crfceo
Truth is, they wouldn't be asking for 75 channels for "minority" content, what they really want to do is compete with Sirius's normal content.