Therein lies the debate...the argument will be that the "finite resource" is the space between one's ears and the time afforded to fill that space.
Keep in mind this is a highly fixed-asset business. Each new subscriber obtained yields mostly profit -- certainly it yields a lot of cash -- and it would be folly for the surviving operation to hike fees by a large amount. The last thing they want to do is tick off the subscriber base. The real losers in this are the content providers -- NASCAR, NHL, MLB, NFL. No longer will there be a bidding war between two satellite providers. Not that I'm sympathetic to the plight of XM or Sirius. They have only themselves to blame for shelling out beaucoup $$ for Howard Stern and his ilk. It would be poetic justice if the "king of all media" brought about the ruin of said media... Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA USA On 2/19/07, Scott Royall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is nothing but bad news in my view. When does creating another monopoly > controlling a finite resource serve the public trust? > _______________________________________________ Swprograms mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms To unsubscribe: Send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or visit the URL shown above.
