I don't understand why your editorial board seems to take a swipe at the satcasters every chance they get. In yesterday's RBR you had the story on the iPod update. In your "observation" you note, ".....when WiFi/WiMax expand and in general the Internet becomes completely mobile, podcasting and satellite will take a major hit". You take, what seems like glee, in noting that the satellite broadcasters will take a hit, yet you leave out one group. The traditional broadcasters. Do you think the broadcasters will be immune to the WiFi/WiMax podcasting influence? Right now, anyone can put up a podcast, not just radio stations. When the Internet becomes completely mobile, it will be interesting to see how many radio stations have their podcasts downloaded verses other, "independent", podcasts. You also note in the same "observation", "And who will pay 10 bucks a month for satellite when they will have thousands of streaming stations and formats to choose from via a true wireless internet package?" I will. Since I have access to the streaming channels on satellite NOW, why would I go out and invest more money for podcast equipment in the future? If, that is, it becomes a reality.

You have noted in other editorials how you are waiting with, what appears to be, "baited" breath to see if the satcasters can follow through with their predictions on becoming financially solvent once they reach a certain number of subs. You also like to make note, every chance you get, about the churn rate for the satcasters. Radio is facing a similar challenge it faced when television emerged as a viable medium. That is, keeping listeners tuned in. It seems some stations, mostly the smaller ones, are doing a better job at this by keeping local content first and foremost in their programming schedules. However, the larger stations are still business as usual.

Getting by with the least amount of staff, voice tracking every day part, except mornings where that might be a show brought in via satellite syndication, and eliminating just about every vestige of personality and local information they can. The difference now is that radio just doesn't have one threat; it has multiple threats, nay thousands of threats, thanks to the advances of technology. Instead of throwing stones at the competitors, I'd much rather see us make our form of radio stronger to hold off the threats from the other mediums. And I would like to see you back off the satellite broadcasters some. Instead, I'd like to see you hold the traditional broadcasters more accountable to the state of the industry.

It's not the satellite broadcaster's fault that the traditional broadcasting industry is in a slump.

Scott Cason
President
LaGrange Communications, LLC