[LINK] Analogue TV frequencies not just used for TV, so spanner in works of spectrum sale

Jan Whitaker jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Mon Jan 22 10:18:52 AEDT 2007

At 09:58 AM 22/01/2007, Kim Holburn wrote:
>I believe the simple economic answer is that more TV stations would
>dilute the advertising dollar and the stations wouldn't be viable.
>It has always seemed to me to be a monopolist's argument (tri- 
>opolists?  quintopolists?).  That's the supposed answer to why we
>only have 5 channels not why we don't use the unallocated channels
>for something else

I know that is what 'they' say. But coming from a small town in 
central Indiana with a population of 55k when all the uni students 
were in residence (about 8000 extra) where we had three TV stations 
that carried local news, local advertising, carried the national 
network programs in the evening, were in access distance of 2 other 
stations from the capital city as well, all free to air, I think that 
argument is a bunch of bunk.  And that was withOUT a public 
broadcasting station similar to ABC. It's called greed and control by 
Packer9/Stokes7/Ch10. We have 3 commercial stations for the entire 
country here, not 5. And the hundreds-of-channels cable systems have 
also put pay to the argument there.


Jan Whitaker
JLWhitaker Associates, Melbourne Victoria
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
personal: http://www.janwhitaker.com/personal/
commentary: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/

'Seed planting is often the most important step. Without the seed, 
there is no plant.' - JW, April 2005
_ __________________ _

More information about the Link mailing list