Friday, July 06, 2007

Fair is fair

The Outpost editor gets a bit long-winded. But I agree with almost every word.


CQ-CQ Any Station said...

"Though the notion appears quaint today, the doctrine arose out of the principle that because the broadcast spectrum is limited, its use should be regulated by the government."

Yeah, quaint, all right. First, we call it the Pre-Digital World, wherein radio stations needed a frequency allocation about the width of a Mack truck to avoid running over the next station’s assigned frequency, no pun intended. Second, we call it Failed Socialist Economic Theory, wherein the government is seen as better at allocating scarce resources than the free market.

Now, in light of your first fact, that the "broadcast spectrum is limited," how do you square that with these other facts you stated?

"In 1970, the United States had 6,900 commercial radio stations... By 2000, the number of stations had expanded to 11,500..."

Weird, wouldn’t you say? There’s no telling how many stations might miraculously appear in the next 30 years. That limited broadcast spectrum is awfully strange, indeed.

Anonymous said...

It's supply & demand.

If there was a following for liberal talk radio, the stations would carry it.

Chuck Rightmire said...

Two points:
1. I would suggest that growth in radio stations may be related to the expansion into FM; and
2. that it may be related to the growth of small, very limited (read that five miles or less) radio stations around the country.
The bigger question that needs answering is the impact of limited ownership on the air waves, both tv and radio.