[BC] While you are waiting for receivers

[Rich Wood]

------ At 01:43 AM 12/12/2005, Williams, Chris \(Albuquerque\) wrote: -------

>You speak of anti-trust like you know something the rest of us 
>don't. Lets get real there's more anti-trust issues with Wal mart 
>then there is Clear Channel. Thats who your problem is with right?

Let me get this right. Because you think Wal-Mart has a problem 
anti-trust is OK? No. Clear Channel is not my issue. The 
collaboration of large competitors to assign formats is my issue. 
and, yes, I may know more about antitrust. I was with General 
Electric during the price fixing scandals. I wasn't even allowed to 
talk to anyone at Westinghouse. It was one of the biggest anti-trust 
cases, ever. Large corporations getting together to fix prices. Now 
we have large corporations getting together to fix programming. 
Sounds awfully similar to me.

I ran this buy a lawyer friend at the Justice Department. According 
to him, it has all the marks of anti-trust. He thought Elliott 
Spitzer would be inclined to take it on, since he's now experienced 
with the industry through the payola issue. Nearly all these 
companies operate in New York State. He didn't think the current 
administration would be likely to prosecute or investigate important friends.

>  Looks to me your perspective is narrow and anti-technology, then 
> again you most likely are a stock holder in XM and would love to 
> see terrestial radio disappear altogether.

Just when I think things can't get dumber you come along and prove me 
wrong. My perspective is anti-destruction of the AM band. By your 
logic I should assume that, because you're a supporter of the huge 
conglomerates you must be a stockholder and want all other forms of 
media to disappear, altogether, and, to equal the stupidity of your 
statement I should assume you're a Bush Republican who never saw a 
huge corporation he couldn't love.

>I don't think Ibiquity is the answer but they did meet the FCC's 
>requirement with a system on band that has simultaneous analog 
>operation. The real debate we should be having is why we are still 
>using the 88-108 when there is more efficent spectrum that would be 
>better suited for broadcast?

I really get a kick out of this. You, and others, sing the praises of 
new technology like IBUZ, then add a disclaimer that, if you had your 
choice, you'd use something better.

I've had an IBUZ radio for a while now. I've actually heard it in 
several different markets. What receiver are you using? I assume, 
since you think this is the salvation of terrestrial radio, you've 
been listening critically to the system. Tell me what you're doing to 
advance the art of broadcasting. I'm sure it must be awesome.

Rich