Re: monopolies

[Paul E:]
>the current monopoly of Clear Channel Communications is ruining
>american musical, and even cultural and political, life in a deep and
>profound way. the cost to society is immeasurable, and was brought
>upon us by said company coercing the government to lift anti-
>monopolizing restrictions in an abrupt move unparalleled in any other
>facet of our economy. lifting the restrictions ushered in a domino
>effect whereby one company gobbled up the rights to control an
>incredible plurality of radio and billboard media and live
>entertainment. as a result, we have effectively concentrated the
>access to the heads and hearts of the masses of american individuals
>and handed it over to a tiny few. there are choices for those who
>pursue them -- but these are rapidly disappearing, and few people
>have any clue that a single entity is behind the vast majority of
>apparent multiplicity of "choices" that seem open to them.

How ironic your complaint is, now of all times, when the Internet
provides a myriad of ways that people can connect. And what is your
"solution" to what you perceive as the "problem" - more government
intrusion into voluntary exchanges between free individuals? It
is SO easy to imagine that government will be Good, but what actually
happens when the government meddles in art is Jesus statues in urine,
funded with money extracted by force from my pocket and yours. I
would prefer to spend my own dollars without help, thank you very much.

JdL

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...>
wrote:
> [Paul E:]
> >the current monopoly of Clear Channel Communications is ruining
> >american musical, and even cultural and political, life in a deep
and
> >profound way. the cost to society is immeasurable, and was brought
> >upon us by said company coercing the government to lift anti-
> >monopolizing restrictions in an abrupt move unparalleled in any
other
> >facet of our economy. lifting the restrictions ushered in a domino
> >effect whereby one company gobbled up the rights to control an
> >incredible plurality of radio and billboard media and live
> >entertainment. as a result, we have effectively concentrated the
> >access to the heads and hearts of the masses of american
individuals
> >and handed it over to a tiny few. there are choices for those who
> >pursue them -- but these are rapidly disappearing, and few people
> >have any clue that a single entity is behind the vast majority of
> >apparent multiplicity of "choices" that seem open to them.
>
> How ironic your complaint is, now of all times, when the Internet
> provides a myriad of ways that people can connect. And what is your
> "solution" to what you perceive as the "problem" - more government
> intrusion into voluntary exchanges between free individuals? It
> is SO easy to imagine that government will be Good, but what
actually
> happens when the government meddles in art is Jesus statues in
urine,
> funded with money extracted by force from my pocket and yours. I
> would prefer to spend my own dollars without help, thank you very
much.
>
> JdL

It was a change in the law regulating how the airwaves were to be
allocated that caused Clear Channels ascendency. It would not require
new government regulation to change it back; just a readjustment of
the parameter that caused the problem in the first place.

BTW, few people have fast enough lines so that they can listen to
internet music, and that costs. Public airwaves can be monitored for
free.

John Starrett

I actually saw this piece as rather alchemical, same with the elephant dung Mary.
Descriptions are a funny thing and as someone who knows two of the people apart of the NEA
money take back that description all though actuarate are untruthful.
Johanna Went being an important performance artist in LA in the 80's who was able to do
maybe 50 costume changes in 15 minutes by having costumes that would transform , twist
inside out, etc. none of this is mentioned in thew "description of her work.
So unless you actually SAW the piece of art in question , i think none of us possibly can
comment on it.
Basically i think the problem is that possibly government should not be based on
commerce at all. Why should Merchants rule the earth?
what do they know about anything but consumption. Which at this point is the belief in
environmental suicide cause that is where it leads. We have this Puer attitude of the
world and psychologically this is probably the race is in. Let me remind you though in a
individual at a certain age the only growth is cancer and to let things go everywhich way
regardless of the system underneath it is Cancer. look at our cities from space. What if
architects ran the world.

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

> It
> is SO easy to imagine that government will be Good, but what actually
> happens when the government meddles in art is Jesus statues in urine,
> funded with money extracted by force from my pocket and yours. .
>
> JdL
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

I regret that I am not familiar with the Clear Channel Communications
issue. If, as several posters have stated, the government is actively
involved in a way that stifles competition, of course I oppose that!
All too often, the government is in bed with the biggest boys,
colluding with them to crush alternatives. Though, as I have stated,
I would invoke government very little to right the wrongs performed by
ruthless competition among private companies, I oppose any active
government involvement in the opposite direction even more strongly.

JdL

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels"
<jdl@a...>
> wrote:
> > [Paul E:]
> > >the current monopoly of Clear Channel Communications is ruining
> > >american musical, and even cultural and political, life in a
deep
> and
> > >profound way. the cost to society is immeasurable, and was
brought
> > >upon us by said company coercing the government to lift anti-
> > >monopolizing restrictions in an abrupt move unparalleled in any
> other
> > >facet of our economy. lifting the restrictions ushered in a
domino
> > >effect whereby one company gobbled up the rights to control an
> > >incredible plurality of radio and billboard media and live
> > >entertainment. as a result, we have effectively concentrated the
> > >access to the heads and hearts of the masses of american
> individuals
> > >and handed it over to a tiny few. there are choices for those
who
> > >pursue them -- but these are rapidly disappearing, and few
people
> > >have any clue that a single entity is behind the vast majority
of
> > >apparent multiplicity of "choices" that seem open to them.
> >
> > How ironic your complaint is, now of all times, when the Internet
> > provides a myriad of ways that people can connect. And what is
your
> > "solution" to what you perceive as the "problem" - more government
> > intrusion into voluntary exchanges between free individuals? It
> > is SO easy to imagine that government will be Good, but what
> actually
> > happens when the government meddles in art is Jesus statues in
> urine,
> > funded with money extracted by force from my pocket and yours. I
> > would prefer to spend my own dollars without help, thank you very
> much.
> >
> > JdL
>
> It was a change in the law regulating how the airwaves were to be
> allocated that caused Clear Channels ascendency. It would not
require
> new government regulation to change it back; just a readjustment of
> the parameter that caused the problem in the first place.
>
> BTW, few people have fast enough lines so that they can listen to
> internet music, and that costs. Public airwaves can be monitored
for
> free.
>
> John Starrett

exactly, john s. and congratulations on your new position!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...>
wrote:

> I regret that I am not familiar with the Clear Channel
>Communications
> issue. If, as several posters have stated, the government is
>actively
> involved in a way that stifles competition, of course I oppose
>that!

the goverment removed crucial regulatory restrictions on the
airwaves, which even most "laissez-faire" economists support, exactly
in such a time and manner that this one company was able to grow to a
completely unprecedented position of dominance. however, a pure
libertarian position like yours would presumably support eliminating
the restrictions altogether.

> All too often, the government is in bed with the biggest boys,
> colluding with them to crush alternatives. Though, as I have
stated,
> I would invoke government very little to right the wrongs performed
by
> ruthless competition among private companies, I oppose any active
> government involvement in the opposite direction even more strongly.

the opposite direction?

>>I oppose any active government involvement in the opposite
>>direction even more strongly.
>
>the opposite direction?

I think John is referring to government-enforced monopolies;
say, National Heathcare.

-Carl

>the goverment removed crucial regulatory restrictions on the
>airwaves, which even most "laissez-faire" economists support,

Actually, I think in this particular example, the influence
of the FCC has led to the problem. Apparently, the issue of
radio interference was never really a problem, and with modern
technology, it's completely obsolete.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >the goverment removed crucial regulatory restrictions on the
> >airwaves, which even most "laissez-faire" economists support,
>
> Actually, I think in this particular example, the influence
> of the FCC has led to the problem. Apparently, the issue of
> radio interference was never really a problem, and with modern
> technology, it's completely obsolete.
>
> -Carl

i don't understand your view of the problem, then. can you elaborate
your position, or point to a website that does?

>> Actually, I think in this particular example, the influence
>> of the FCC has led to the problem. Apparently, the issue of
>> radio interference was never really a problem, and with
>> modern technology, it's completely obsolete.
>
> i don't understand your view of the problem, then. can you
> elaborate your position, or point to a website that does?

As Kraig said, the airwaves belong to us. However, I can't go
out and broadcast FM. It's a federal crime. Thing is,
auctioning off slices of rf spectrum to big business is very
lucrative. The FCC does it under the guise of preventing radio
interference chaos. But according to some experts, there was
never a danger of this. But importantly, modern spread spec.
rf means there definitely isn't a danger of this. Hang out on
slashdot or do a search for free radio, microbroadcasting, etc.

There are a couple of micro stations around Berkeley. They're
heavily illegal, so they're usually broadcast from vans, which
drive around. I've picked a few up, over the course of time.
They rock.

Anyway, point is, the FCC created artificial competetion for a
resource that isn't scarce. It's driven the price up to favor
monopolies, and make it impossible for me to start a radio
station. Etc. I understand the CC thing was due to decreasing
regulation at another level, but idea is the whole environment
might not have existed without regulation in the first place.

'O course, we have to be careful with analysis like this.
There's nary a market where some "interference" can't be found
at some point in its history. Such arguments should not be
taken as justification for laissez-faire whatchamacallit.

-Carl

I can reassure you Carl that it is going on daily by a group that wants
to have 88.9 accross the country and sets up relay stations around the
parimeter of said KXLU to bleed into our area. this has happen before and it
normally take the FCC a year to do anything about it. by that time you
audience loses patience

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >the goverment removed crucial regulatory restrictions on the
> >airwaves, which even most "laissez-faire" economists support,
>
> Actually, I think in this particular example, the influence
> of the FCC has led to the problem. Apparently, the issue of
> radio interference was never really a problem, and with modern
> technology, it's completely obsolete.
>
> -Carl
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST