Re: Re: Boston radio now-- or rather, Clear Channel radio now

[hopfgapr@sprynet.com]

Regardless of what folks may think about the "Public Air Waves", I don't think the arguement can be made for cable. Cable TV is not (to my knowledge) in existence for the "public interest" so if one's cable bill is too high, just stop subscribing.

It seems most of the folks (all except myself?) seem totally disgusted by the '96 Telecom Act. How many on this list have directly lost a position as a result of this act, as opposed to other circumstances? (Just curious...not trying to be nasty or anything) I, for one, didn't find radio particularly diverse in content PRIOR to 1996. Different owners perhaps, but not significantly different content.

I also think we need a good 20 years out to determine the true long-term effects of Telecom 96. As someone that thinks the Feds do WAY TO MUCH regulating as it is, I need to see the long term effects of this action. I think reducing government involvement in any endeavor is a good thing unless clearly and succinctly proven otherwise.

-Paul Hopfgarten
-Derry NH

Peter George <radiojunkie3@yahoo.com> wrote:
>      The Telecomm Bill of 1996 was designed to
"promote competition and diversification on the
market".  We got competition alright, but among 4
broadcast companies and no one else.  As for
diversification in the market, you answer that.  As a
result, we have a radio dial that stinks of "vanilla".
 Everything is "tested" for your satisfaction.  Sorry,
I am not satisfied.  Thank God there are "the few, the
proud" (and I don't mean the Marines), like Bob
Bittner to who stand up for what they feel is right
(or in the case of the Telecomm Bill....just plain
WRONG!).
     Oh, also by the way.... instead of my cable bill
going down, it has almost doubled since 1996...and I
have NOT added ANY premium channels since that time. 
So much for saving me money.

-Pete (K1XRB) 
      
--- Larry Weil  wrote:
> 
> --- Donna Halper  wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, except (Dan Billings, please don't hate me)
> > this was largely pushed 
> > by the Republican congress, who have received
> > MILLIONS in donations and 
> > contributions from the NAB and various companies
> > like Clear Channel.  Clinton signed it because
> >congress had enough votes to over-ride 
> > his veto. 
> 
> Also, remember that there was a lot of pressure put
> on by those who tried to present this as a consumer
> friendly bill, in that it supposedly would solve a
> number of consumer issues related to cable TV.  This
> is how they (whoever is they?) generated citizen
> calls and letters in support of the bill.
> 
> =====
> Larry Weil
> Lake Wobegone, NH
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great
> prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/


=====
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts
                           "Scanning the bands since 1967"
radiojunkie1@yahoo.com
radiojunkie3@yahoo.com
***********************************************************

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/