TheNiche

The future can be a lot of things. It probably won't be defined by 45-year-old technology or by a 15-year-old movie.

Learn the meaning of the unmodified word "or". This was not an "either-or" question. You have yet to answer my first question, but it seems that you'd agree that they're seeking to carry on with a successful business model. Help me understand what you mean by "reduced the variety of content". If their channels aren't off the air or airing the same material over and over or simultaneously, then the variety of content within any one market is unaffected. And since there have been an expansion in the number of radio stations, it'd seem like content has actually expanded in quantity. Are you talking about locally-produced content, the total number of hours of content produced nationwide, or what? And if so, or if it is something else, why do you see that as a matter of national importance? (Please note: I'm asking two seperate questions, seeking responses to each, seperately. These are not arguments, so don't assess them as such. Thank you.) In which market did they own seven stations? For what duration of time? How many stations were active in that market in total? If we're talking about LA or something like that, prepare for me to be unimpressed.

The problem with crystal balls is that they're translucent. You might be able to make out the color and general shape of the object on the other side, but the details are obscured. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within another 10 to 20 years, there are enough XM satellites and channels that every car (or ultralight commuter plane or iPod, or whatever) comes only with an XM receiver and the user only has to choose whether they want programming with or without commercial interruption on a free or subscriber basis, respectively. Or perhaps XM is just an intermediate media that'll be replaced with something altogether different. Whatever happens, it seems as though the number of channels in one format or another is going to expand. And to the extent that XM drains traditional radio of its more affluent listenership, limiting ad revenue potential, it is entirely possible that the cost of purchasing FM or AM channels will decline to the point at which we see a lot of really amateurish low-budget locally-owned and locally-produced programming targeting niche audiences. I really don't know, but you'll have to count me as an optimist. I'm a big believer in human ingenuity where technology is concerned.

I suppose its possible that the City of Houston just didn't want to pump its own water to serve your neighborhood, so it bought some excess capacity from a nearby MUD, and you're just paying user fees. If you're paying City taxes, you're in the City.

There are a few--very few--MUDs in incorporated municipalities, so if you're paying taxes to the MUD, you probably aren't paying taxes to the City of Houston. Pull the HCAD data on your home and see what entities you're paying taxes to. Those are the ones you're located within.

Per the FCC, the number of commercial radio stations has increased by 6.8% over the previous 10 years. I did not, myself, expect that when I found the stat. ...learn something new every day. Oh, and don't forget about satellite radio. There are some that'd argue that its a different kind of media format altogether, but I'd argue that it's a decent substitute for tradional AM/FM radio. Lots of new channels, there.

I'm not sure whether you didn't understood what I'd said or whether you don't understand what you're saying. First of all, enough with this false dichotomy business. An argument cannot be unsound or fallacious if an argument wasn't made. I asked two questions, discounted neither as a possibility, and expected an answer. The universe of possible responses is {(yes,yes),(yes,no),(no,yes),(no,no)}, and more importantly, I'd hope that you would provide explanation and evidence supporting your response. Secondly, what I've been saying is that Clear Channel has not actually removed the number of voices on the airwaves. They may change the voices or even station formats, but the number of options available to the listening public remains the same. They could broadcast Rush Limbaugh on all of their channels at the same time, but that would be stupid. They are in it for the money and they aren't stupid. It doesn't matter to me that they could do something stupid...they won't. And third, according to the FCC, there are nearly 11,000 commercial radio stations in the U.S. If Clear Channel owns 1,200, that's 11%. The next largest owner is Cumulus Broadcasting, which has about 300 stations (3%). It is true that there has been ownership consolidation, but it doesn't concern me. If Clear Channel ever owns more than half of the stations, that'll be reason enough for my eyebrows to become slightly elevated. But for the time being, the only thing elevated are my shoulders.

Because the part that I'm talking about is really low density.

I don't think you quite understood what I meant.If Clear Channel continues to expand their presence in a media market, say by purchasing an increasing number of radio stations out of a finite and essentially unchanging number of them, then Clear Channel going to have to expand the aggregate amount of content offer media consumers in that market while the seller of the station reduces the amount of content that they offer, such that the net change of air time utilized for content is effectively zero. Some voices currently on the air might be deemed uneconomical, and in fact whole stations might undergo a format change, but it isn't as though Clear Channel is just going to air Rush Limbaugh (a mere vendor to Clear Channel) on multiple stations serving the same market at the same time--that'd be stupid. Instead, they're going to provide differentiated content that appeals optimally to various segments of the media market such that Clear Channel captures the largest market share as is possible. You'd stated that Clear Channel is paying politicians "to keep everyone else off the public airwaves." But, considering the practicalities stated above, who is being deposed from the airwaves by some government decree paid for by Clear Channel? Fox News is a station of Newscorp, just as is Fox (broadcast) and FX. Newscorp is very comparable to Clear Channel because they have different channels that appeal to different segments of a market. Newscorp itself is ideologically neutral; they just want to make money. Every one of those channels has content that troubles me, whether they're overtly broadcasting socialist propaganda or just the everyday sort. But breaking them up is only a futile reactionary response to the symptoms of a greater problem: the educational system. If you have a problem with the media that people gravitate to, changing the people should probably be your aim. The media that they consume is only an outgrowth of that. Please explain relevence. I like anti-trust regulation, but I'd appreciate it if you'd provide evidence to the effect that Clear Channel is a monopoly.

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.

Proof is elusive, but: Evidence --> $

SA has military bases, Dallas has south Dallas. But even factoring out the military bases from SA, its 382 to 345.

Privatized service and service support operations are another matter, but mercenary combatants are where I draw the line. Way too many downsides, not much benefit. And our VA obligations wouldn't even go away until all our current veterans died off; even when they did, we'd have to pay either directly or indirectly for mercenaries' benefits, or else the compensation package wouldn't be sufficient to attract enough mercenaries. It was debating the military privatization issue that prompted my conclusion that I wouldn't make a very good Libertarian. Forgive me for perhaps being thick-headed, but could you provide an example?

Are they in fact paying politicians to keep anybody off the airwaves? Or are they just expanding a successful business model? Immense. But that you or I are free to speak our mind does not mean that everyone else ought to hear what we have to say. Clear Channel seeks programming that people actually want to hear, and puts that on the air.

All members of the public ought to have equal access to ownership of the airwaves. Station frequencies are finite in number, so they must be efficiently rationed to those who can create the greatest value with them (i.e. the highest bidder). Ditto on parks, roads, BLM lands, port terminals, and civic buildings. ...just about everything but military bases. I don't know why. That's a question for your elected representatives.

The City of San Antonio has more square mileage than the City of Dallas.

The toll hike hasn't had much effect on West Belt congestion, but that's only because they didn't hike it high enough. HCTRA is clearly at fault, however, because this is something that they should've been doing with far greater regularity and consistency; they failed to manage toll road users' expectations. Had they done it propertly, they could've been rolling in dough and easily obtained financing to massively expand capacity. Building better highways is making the area more convenient for the form of transporation that the vast majority of us use. If the operating cost of a private automobile doubled overnight, it would reduce traffic volume, but at the same time, we'd have continuous population growth, so that before long, we'd be looking at the same level of congestion again. There are some cities, like Detroit, that could get away with not building any new roads, and over time an increase in gasoline costs would solve their congestion issues; we aren't Detroit. Besides, what do you suspect would replace the car? Do you suspect that it also might need a roadbed? You made a statement about air quality not getting any better as more cars get on the roads. Not necessarily. Technology has improved dramatically in the past several decades so that air pollution was reduced even as aggregate miles driven skyrocketed.

That a media conglomeration has a sufficiently good business model that its market share expands, I don't see a problem. When that successful enterprise runs up against a barrier to growth put in place by politicians, I don't blame them for trying to breach it. I hope that they succeed.

I shall say whatever I damned well please whenever I please, and on the basis of that consistent honesty, you will hire me because you know I won't kiss your ass one moment and rob you the next.

That's commerce.

I don't know why people are so opposed to Clear Channel, but I like billboards too. They add a bit of grit and vitality to the landscape. Take them away, and it just makes the city a little bit more sterile...not unlike a master planned community in the suburbs. One thing I would like to see are dynamic billboards. But if I recall correctly, our sign code doesn't allow it.

Anybody know of any homes listed on MLS with bomb shelters? Could be an interesting selling point for someone with a penchant for mid-century homes.

Is a bank a use for "less people"? What does that mean, exactly, anyway?

As a general rule, anybody making a statement to a newspaper is only going to tell a reporter what they want to have heard by the general public. If they didn't...well that'd just be stupid. I mean...ridiculously stupid.

Naming rights are negotiated as part of a tenant's lease--it isn't just the owner being nice to a corporation for no apparent reason. The sale of a building does not void the terms of any tenant's lease.