This concept seems simple enough, but apparently it is completely lost
on the vast majority of drivers. I started a new job recently, and it
involves regular road trips to the Washington D.C. area, and
Philadelphia. These trips put me on I-95, I-64, and US-13, 2 and 3 lane
roads for the majority of the time.
What I cant understand is why people insist on driving in the left
lane, while impeding the rest of the world who have places to, things
to do, and people to see. I think in their mind they are justified by
doing their part to keep us scofflaws in check, and obeying traffic
laws, while they may be violating the law. So I guess it is ok for them
to violate the law while keeping us in check.
What I guess is what a lot of people don’t understand, is that the left lane is actually the Passing Lane, and if you are not passing slower traffic, get into the right lane. The passing lane is not there for your convenience, so that you don’t have to pay attention to the traffic ahead of you while chatting on your cell phone, or so you can set your cruise control and not have to worry about braking, etc… It is there to facilitate passing. This applies for all multi lane roads.
So if you are in the left lane, doing your part to keep the roads safe from scofflaws like myself,
and you see a long line of traffic behind you, or you notice people
passing you on the right, get out of the PASSING LANE.
Oh yeah one very last thing, provide better programming, and you’ll
put the new merged company out of business, that is the American way…
Jun 9, 8:53 PM — [ ... ] — Satellite Radio Interruptions
Chris,
First of all, you not ever having been a customer, I don’t feel you are
qualified to comment, but this being a free country and all…
I think you really missed my point here, in its current form they
both blow away terrestrial radio, and I am all for the merger. AM and
FM Radio has brought this upon themselves. I doubt I’ll ever go back to
regular radio at any cost point, while the NAB is running around
shouting MONOPOLY, to anyone who’ll listen, you miss the point of
market economics. If the new merged company raises their rates, without
expanding service, customers will go away, broadcast radio radio does
just the opposite, they lose listeners, then add more commercials to
make up for the lost revenue. My commute is on average 15 to 20 minutes
each way, before I converted to satellite there were many times when
all I heard were commercials, and a couple of minutes of last weeks
news, or last years jokes for the entire 20 minutes.
Webster’s defines a monopoly as “Exclusive ownership through legal
privilege, command of supply, or concerted action”, and the proposed
merger can only be defined as a monopoly in the fact that the merged
company will have command of the supply at the time of the merger. Will
the company continue to have that “command of supply” if another
venture decides to launch a couple of satellites and broadcast radio,
no. Can the merged company do anything to stop such a venture, no, that
would be illegal “monopolistic practices”. The NAB never brings up
terrestrial radio groups when they talk monopoly, but there are markets
where these groups own the majority of the market, and are able to put
the squeeze on the locally owned independent station, and “undercut the
advertising prices at both the national and local levels” (your words),
maybe congress should take a look at that.
The thing that all the NAB members and shills miss is the variety
available to the listener, there is a station for every taste, can
regular radio say that, no. There again you wouldn’t understand,
because you have never been a customer of either XM or SIRIUS. The only
thing that you will hear on regular radio is only what is commercially
acceptable. For example this post by a friend of mine God I Miss the Dregs do you think he is happy with regular radio? No he is not, he listens to his iPod all day…
How is an entity that only has advertising on its talk stations
going to undercut advertising, I am really confused on that one. The
average “ditto head” that listens to talk radio all day, is not the
person that is going to kick down the $12.95 a month to listen to Rush,
when he can get it for free, unless of course Rush tells them to, and
maybe the occasional right wing trucker. That is not the satellite
demographic. I will concede that XM does have advertising on I think 7
of its channels, which was the result of a deal with clear channel, but
as I understand it, those ads will go away in a year or so…
So Chris, go get a radio and subscribe, and tell me after a month that regular radio is better…
The last thing I would like to address is the difference between
Billing and Customer Service. I have had nothing but the greatest
service from both XM and SIRIUS’ customer service departments, my issue
was the BILLING department. The entire situation was explained to me as
to what happened, I was credited the full amount and then some…
Okay the last last thing, with the exception of Madison, all the
DJ’s on SIRIUS are head and shoulders above anyone on regular radio,
she just annoys the F out of me…
Jun 9, 8:45 PM — [ ... ] — Satellite Radio Interruptions
While I have never been a customer of either service, I’ve been following the proposed merger in my work with the NAB.
Between the customer service and programming problems you mention,
should the merger go through, their would be even less incentive for
that entity to address these problems. You aren’t the first person that
I’ve heard complain about XM’s customer service. This combined
satellite radio monopoly could charge higher prices, and feel less
pressure to cater to demands of their listeners.
Not to mention the potential harm to local broadcasters. This
monopoly would have the ability to utilize anti-competitive practices,
like charging more and use those profits to undercut the advertising
prices at both the national and local levels.
Thanks.
Jun 6, 3:49 PM — [ ... ] — Satellite Radio Interruptions