Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: American Public Media states today:

  1. #11
    crfceo is offline
    Banned
    crfceo's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 205
    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..

  2. #12
    spanyo is offline
    Enthusiast
    spanyo's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 135
    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.
    Last edited by spanyo; 07-19-2008 at 05:24 PM.

  3. #13
    crfceo is offline
    Banned
    crfceo's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 205
    you are referring to the sirius offer...the opposing offer is very different

  4. #14
    spanyo is offline
    Enthusiast
    spanyo's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 135
    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.
    Last edited by spanyo; 07-19-2008 at 04:53 PM.

  5. #15
    voogru is offline
    Member
    voogru's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 73
    Quote Originally Posted by crfceo View Post
    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..
    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.

    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.

  6. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •