Re: FCC (was: Re: clear channel buys amfm)

[Mike Thomas <nostatic@earthlink.net>]

Not quite.  If you have a lot of listeners, it may be due to the fact that you
have a good signal.  In most markets, the stations with the best signals tend to
be toward the top of the ratings heap regardless of format.  An example of this
would be Portsmouth, NH.  The two top stations in that market year in and year
out are WHEB and WOKQ.  Why?  Most likely because both have 50K sticks and the
rest of the competition only runs 3 or 6K signals which don't cover the entire
metro. Both HEB and OKQ have sounded pretty crappy over the past year, with HEB
sounding the worst.  Because these stations have superior signals, do they "serve
the public interest" better than a 3K signal doing good radio but that not
everyone can hear?  I think not.

Many people complain about having only one newspaper to choose from,or only one
cable company.  Imagine what it would be like if we had only one ISP to choose
from, or one phone company again, or maybe one cellular/digital phone service.
People, including some on this list would go ballistic.  I don't think having
some limits on station ownership are a bad thing, but I don't want to go back to
one AM/FM in a market either.  I think the current set-up is relatively fair and
should stay in place.

Mike Thomas
WXLO & Mediabase 24/7

Dib9@aol.com wrote:

> The average citizen couldn't care less who owns their local radio station.
> My definition of the public interest is if you have a lot of listeners you
> must be serving the public well and if you do not have a lot of listeners you
> must not be doing a good job serving the public.
>