<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/">
<channel>
	<generator>Vivvo CMS 4.1</generator>
	<title></title>
	<link>http://www.rbr.com/</link>
	<copyright>&amp;copy;2010 Spoonlabs d.o.o.</copyright>
	
	
			
				
					<item>
						
							<title>Clear Channel still pushing for bigger local cap</title>
							<link>http://www.rbr.com/radio/11382.html</link>
							<category>Radio News</category>
							<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:35:00 -0500</pubDate>
							<description>In comments to the FCC requesting that an HD tuner be included in interoperable satellite radio receivers, Clear Channel lamented that there have not even</description>
							
						
					</item>
					
							
								
									<item>
										<title>John Terhar</title>
										
										<category>Radio News</category>
										<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:33:46 -0500</pubDate>
										<description>This whole issue is the darndest thing I have ever heard.  Is C C forgetting the part where subscribers pay $ 13+ per month for the sat radio service?  Why should they be forced to subsidise the failed experiment called &amp;quot;HD radio&amp;quot;?  Is C C forgetting that the sat radio companies subsidise the auto makers to put sat ready radios in cars?  Why doesn&amp;#039;t C C pay the automakers to put HD radios in new cars?  Hey, C C, I have an idea... Why don&amp;#039;t you put programming on your free over the air channels that people want to hear and drive sat radio out of business?  Why not compete and win rather than force sat radio to heavily tilt the playing field in your direction?</description>
									</item>
								
							
						
				
			
		




<description></description>
</channel>
</rss>
