Tandem46

Tandem46

Well Known Member
Read this in September issue of FLYING magazine (I can't seem to copy it into here, so I'll just type it out.

XM Weather Target of Broadcast Association

The National Association of Broadcasters is again pushing members of Congress to support bills in both houses seeking to ban satellite radio providers from providing "locally differentiated" services and "locally oriented" programming. The ban, a disappointment and inconvenience for radio listeners, would create a significant safety issue for pilots who have come to rely on XM WX as a strategic weapon in dealing with adverse weather. Opponents of the effort to ban the service contend that satellite weather provides crucial public interest benefits and has revolutionized air safety by providing comprehensive graphical weather displays 24/7. The threat is serious; the house bill (HR998) has some 120 cosponsors. To express your concern about the effects of a ban on XM's satellite weather, XM Radio recommends you write to your congressperson and urge him or her to oppose HR998, and to send a copy of the letter to [email protected], to allow XM to show the scale of the objection from the pilot community.
 
Last edited:
tobinbasford said:
Good follow-up info. Thanks Milt.
Click to expand...

I agree with your original posting though. A call or letter to our elected idiots against this thing won't hurt.
 
Check AOPA's web site. They are active in opposition to the proposed change and highlighted the subject in today's newsletter.
Al Paulsen
Flying 6-A - FS
 
Dgamble said:
Looks to be an unintended consequence of government being asked yet again (via large "campaign contributions," no doubt) to protect an obsolete business model. When will they learn?
Click to expand...

When we stop electing them. We need only look in the mirror. Don't like your party's candidate? Get involved in the primaries. We get the government we deserve.

Look at the basic premise of this rotten bill - to prevent competition. The commies would be proud.

EOSB
 
Dgamble said:
Looks to be an unintended consequence of government being asked yet again (via large "campaign contributions," no doubt) to protect an obsolete business model. When will they learn?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, sounds very familiar to the aviation community opposing changing an obsolete method of bumping up octane by mixing lead in aviation fuel; or refusing to accept electronic ignition as a viable aviation ignition system; or accepting fuel injection over carburation; or GPS as a reliable navigation tool; or . . .

yarddart said:
They never will!
Click to expand...
I wonder if "They" is a familiar group!
 
I guess this means XM will probably lose it's traffic and weather audio channels? Those are definately region-based.

XM radio in my garage is one of the best tools I've ever purchased. Listening to hours of music while working in the garage and never hearing a commerical or the same 5 songs repeated ad infinitum is very nice. I guess Congress isn't happy unless we're subjected to complete and total consumerism (advertisements) 24/7.
 
RVbySDI said:
Hmmm, sounds very familiar to the aviation community opposing changing an obsolete method of bumping up octane by mixing lead in aviation fuel;
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree with you, but there is the minor exception that the aviation community can't use deadly force or incarceration to get their way.
 
AlexPeterson said:
Look at the basic premise of this rotten bill - to prevent competition. The commies would be proud.
Click to expand...

Or in this case, the major money behind the bill would be proud: Clear Channel. They consolidated local radio so much that it was all the same (by changing FCC rules on station ownership), then XM gets in - so they want to bribe their way to more monopoly.

Evil.
 
RVbySDI said:
Hmmm, sounds very familiar to the aviation community opposing changing an obsolete method of bumping up octane by mixing lead in aviation fuel; ...
Click to expand...
There's a better way to raise octane rating (better includes less expensive)??
 
Low Pass said:
There's a better way to raise octane rating (better includes less expensive)??
Click to expand...
Well, I do not wish to highjack this thread but to answer your question, if one doesn't care what the substance does to living things in the environment it is burnt in, then one might say there isn't a "better way". However, considering how horibly nasty lead is when ingested by living creatures I would say, yes there is a better way. Of course, I am not one to say what that "better way" is but I would sure be willing to explore the issue rather than say "ah shucks, we already have something that works so why change? So what if it destroys the environment, if it destroys brain cells or if it destroys this or that. As long as it is cheap and works why would we want to change anything?"

I definelty do not claim to be an expert on any of this but it has always been my understanding that lead poisoning was a primary cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire. I am sure they had the same philosophy about their lead water pipes (plumbum, or as we call it today, plumbing). Why should they ever change what was working? What possible harm could such a useful substance cause and besides that, what could we ever use that would be as cheap or as easy to use as lead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.