Says Radio Business Report:
Most broadcasters believe there are huge differences in the two businesses [radio and satellite]. A local broadcaster does not have over 100 channels at its disposal, and the satellite services need not pay any attention whatsoever to local idiosyncrasies, much less deal with local emergencies. Although both companies are still losing money, both say they can and will survive on their own if the merger does not go through. We’d strongly argue that the services are unique, and since their continued survival as competitors is not an issue there is no reason to grant a government-sanctioned monopoly.
It’s true that survival alone is no reason to grant a merger, but otherwise this argument is quite wrong.
The point of reference to satellite is not radio but “all alternatives to satellite,” including radio and all other technology. The competitors to both satellite and radio are “things which provide the same benefit as satellite and radio.” Lobbying and power politics aside, the issue has nothing – nothing – to do with how many channels you have. This is an old school understanding of a new media world.
We in radio would be wise to cease our obsession with satellite and focus on threats and opportunities which are immeasurably more important to our future (and theirs, too).
The Feds will not see things the way RBR does.
The merger is going to get approved.
And it won’t affect your world at all.
Comments