Radio in Britain. They appear to have built it upside down...
Saturday, 14. July 2007, 11:34:22
Amazingly, 'Ofcom' isn't a website dedicated to getting us all to switch off everything to save the planet, it's the organisation that controls the radio waves in the UK, although why they didn't just call it TOTCTRWITUK, or maybe an anagram of that, I don't really know. What does 'Ofcom' mean? Please tell me it's not 'Office of Communications', I'd much rather it stood for 'Obstinate fargling creatures on methadone' or something else more appropriate.
According to their website "The radio spectrum (the frequencies on which services are broadcast) is a scarce resource; therefore, the government has empowered the Radio Authority to plan and manage its use for the commercial radio sector. This is to ensure that the relevant frequencies are used efficiently and effectively."
I don't quite see the connection between 'Commercial sector' and 'Scarce resource'. Why exactly should scarce resources which by rights should belong to everyone, be given to the commercial sector? And since when has the commercial sector used anything efficiently and effectively? I think there are a couple of tribes about to be thrown out of their rainforest who don't quite see things that way. Maybe it depends upon what you actually regard as being 'effective' or 'efficient'.
Having money does not make you an expert, it makes you rich. There is no evidence to suggest that just because you could afford to bid more for your bit of the radio spectrum you have a better plan for it, it simply means that you're going to have to make a lot more money to pay for it, and that means heading straight for the lowest common denominator with money in its pockets.
Adult orientated pop with loads of flashbacks to a better time then.
It's long been proven that pop radio makes money, so the pop radio people can afford to bid big and win the national licences, thereby giving us national pop stations. Niche markets like jazz, country, soul, or Himalayan throat music can only afford, at best, regional, and more often, local licences. Now c'mon, is that really efficiency in action? It's obviously not effective because it means that huge swathes of the country aren't covered by a station playing their kind of music.
To make niche market radio viable it needs a national licence, that way it may just drag in enough listeners overall to pull in enough advertisers to pay for it. Pop radio can survive quite happily on a local licence, any city in the country has enough pop fans to drag in the ads and pay the bills for at least two stations.
So why are the licences being handed out in the opposite direction?
Answers, on a postcard, to Ofcom, please.
According to their website "The radio spectrum (the frequencies on which services are broadcast) is a scarce resource; therefore, the government has empowered the Radio Authority to plan and manage its use for the commercial radio sector. This is to ensure that the relevant frequencies are used efficiently and effectively."
I don't quite see the connection between 'Commercial sector' and 'Scarce resource'. Why exactly should scarce resources which by rights should belong to everyone, be given to the commercial sector? And since when has the commercial sector used anything efficiently and effectively? I think there are a couple of tribes about to be thrown out of their rainforest who don't quite see things that way. Maybe it depends upon what you actually regard as being 'effective' or 'efficient'.
Having money does not make you an expert, it makes you rich. There is no evidence to suggest that just because you could afford to bid more for your bit of the radio spectrum you have a better plan for it, it simply means that you're going to have to make a lot more money to pay for it, and that means heading straight for the lowest common denominator with money in its pockets.
Adult orientated pop with loads of flashbacks to a better time then.
It's long been proven that pop radio makes money, so the pop radio people can afford to bid big and win the national licences, thereby giving us national pop stations. Niche markets like jazz, country, soul, or Himalayan throat music can only afford, at best, regional, and more often, local licences. Now c'mon, is that really efficiency in action? It's obviously not effective because it means that huge swathes of the country aren't covered by a station playing their kind of music.
To make niche market radio viable it needs a national licence, that way it may just drag in enough listeners overall to pull in enough advertisers to pay for it. Pop radio can survive quite happily on a local licence, any city in the country has enough pop fans to drag in the ads and pay the bills for at least two stations.
So why are the licences being handed out in the opposite direction?
Answers, on a postcard, to Ofcom, please.
WIDGETIZE