Apparently, broadcasting is a relative term until there is something new to challenge the status quo.

We all can live without satrad, cellphones, digital music players, GPS, real time traffic, etc. The choice of information is the public''s to choose.

Apparently, we can''t live without oil, gas, coffee, pork bellies or other commodities. Terrestrial radio is a commodity - until this starts losing potential revenue streams to a new provider.

Local cable providers are monopolies in their own right - NYC for example. I can''t choose satellite because my building won''t allow me to. Is this right? Only until the gov''t says otherwise (i.e. FiOS). But, will I switch?

The choice is mine.

BTW - (per Wiki) "...it has been alleged that the FCC was influenced by RCA chairman David Sarnoff, and that the change had the covert goal of disrupting the successful FM network that Edwin Armstrong had established on the old band. Radios built for the original FM radio band could be retrofitted with converters, but many were just replaced. The greater expense was to the radio stations themselves that had to rebuild their stations for the new FM radio band. The move of the FM band, an organized campaign of misinformation by RCA (a company that competed with FM radio by focusing on AM radio and the emerging technology of television), and adverse rulings by the FCC severely set back the development of FM radio. On March 1, 1941 W47NV began operations in Nashville, Tennessee, becoming the first modern commercial FM radio station. However, FM radio did not recover from the setback until the upsurge in high fidelity equipment in the late 1950s."

I don't think that NOW is the time for the FCC to go back on thier original decision. Though it has been whitewashed well lately, it is still a merger that results in a monopoly. The rules were defined when the licsense for each were given. Though changing the rules in the middle of the game seems to be what everyone has become accustomed to. Somewhere it needs to end.. Otherwise, anything stipulated will always be looked at as if it is capable of being manipulated later on down the line.

To RJ Amort,

If the public is so stupid to realize the issues this monopoly will wrought then, please, educate us! I''d love to hear the major points of your argument. I have to suspect that 1) you don''t own/use satellite or even internet radio or 2)don''t own/use cable or satellite television.

Cable TV has been cornering customers with lack of provider choice, programming and customer service for years. Small improvements have been made as technology continues to grow. Every channel should be available in high def...not just 20 or 30. However, the most popular shows are from the four networks.

Its comments like yours that blindly attack how much the public, who is willing to pay for for SATRAD, is using this new medium for quality entertainment terrestrial radio can''t provide. If this same thought process was applied to television: no Sopranos, no The Wire, no Mad Men, no John Adams, no Monk, no MTV.

And, as you may not know, people STILL want their MTV.

Hopefully, you''re not ultra hawk looking for the prosperity times of the 80''s. Again, educate us, please. Come on papa, preach.

This merger is a case study of money in politics. The terrestrial broadcast industry's lobbyists' fingerprints are all over the FCC's decisions to date. The lobbyists have argues that these satellite companies would be a monopoly (a view correctly rejected by the Justice Department), yet the only reason they had a dog in the fight was precisely because they are in competition with the satellite companies and hence by its very nature there is no monopoly. Now the lobbyists are having their FCC minions place unduly restrictive conditions on the merger for purpose of dissuading these companies from merging. Where were these types of conditions during the Exxon-Mobile merger? That merged company now makes multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of the American consumer, while these fledging satellite companies lose millions of dollars a year. It is a sad commentary on the state of our government which is suppossed to be run by the People for the People, not by Clear Channel and for Clear Channel.

When is the general public going to stop Clear Channel and all there
cronies from cornering the market on broadcast radio, concert
promotion etc etc. They have shelled out payola to every member of
government to stop Howard Stern from being heard by the masses.
When in the hell are we the people going to stop this. Sat Radio is the
way of the future and poor old Clear Channel is breaking the law by
trying to stop the public from having what they are willing to pay for
MONTHLY.