http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520013029
and a useful assessment....
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...erability.html
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520013029
and a useful assessment....
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...erability.html
What are your thoughts on those articles?
Charles LaRocca
SiriusBuzz Founder
I'm not sure what my thoughts were on that particular day. I was surprised and delighted to see sirius go on offense for once. By attacking the NAB and C3SR, they are again proving to the commission that they are in direct competition with broadcast radio.
By demonstrating the lengths at which the opposition will go to delay the merger, it takes credibility away from the NAB and C3SR...
I totally agree although I hope that the competition factor is completely obvious and that the NAB and C3SR intentions are totally transparent to those who have control over this decision.
One would hope so. Unfortunately, the NAB seems to have more power than the president. They have now recruited 218 members of Congress to oppose broadcast radio having to pay royalty fees to artists. Kevin Martin obviously fears them as well.
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0103/t.13950.html
NAB Runs Ad Opposing Performance Royalty
6.13.2008
The National Association of Broadcasters ran print advertisements (PDF) this week applauding 218 members of Congress for supporting H. Con. Res. 244 and S. Con. Res. 82.
Those resolutions oppose RIAA-backed legislation that would require broadcasters to compensate record labels for radio airplay of music. The ad ran in “Roll Call,” “Politico,” “The Hill,” “Congress Daily” and “CQ.”
The ad preceded a House subcommittee hearing on the Performance Rights Act, which if passed, would impose a performance royalty on terrestrial stations.
that's pretty interesting, thanks for the info