Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Competition: fair/unfair
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 84658" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: Competition: fair/unfair</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is that a realistic argument...? I am kind of relieved that they built a Dollar-General store on the large field in front of the old abandoned HS next to my property. Now I don't have to listen to truly bad country singing, over a certainly loud but not clear PA system, every Hickory day. Now they set up a 1/2 mile away and it isn't so hard to ignore. Watching geriatric line dancers is not even interesting to me at my advanced age. Its still an ewwwwww.:-( </p><p></p><p>Profits seem useful for a business that need to buy expensive gear to operate. That gear getting cheaper does lower the barrier for entry for competitors but this is not a bad thing and not new (think Peavey). There has been cheap gear around for a long time. Being able to afford the gear only qualifies you to rent it out, not operate it. You still need to be able to compete to effectively compete. </p><p></p><p>Protectionism would be more like the old guild system or board certification where the established sound companies would band together and require new comers to pass tests and get a license to operate sound systems. This is pervasive in some lower tech occupations like beauticians, barbers, or any occupation that has been around long enough to consolidate power and protect the privileged position by writing their own regulations. "You can't have unlicensed sound companies electrocuting innocent musicians and damaging children's ears with loud music." </p><p></p><p>Auctioning off and policing the frequency spectrum, a public asset, is some of the right kind of work for government. </p><p></p><p>The highest bidder is kind of the public benefit. The government protects over air TV channels in an archaic (in light of the web) protection of the free press (so they can be critical of government. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile :-)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> ). Wireless mics for live sound or anything else is not remotely a public benefit. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Seems this is the discussion... We managed to capture sound from microphones and feed them into consoles with mundane copper wire for a long time. One might question why is this RF link such a necessity?</p><p></p><p>Now if there is nothing better to do with it, then it's all good. </p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 84658, member: 126"] Re: Competition: fair/unfair Is that a realistic argument...? I am kind of relieved that they built a Dollar-General store on the large field in front of the old abandoned HS next to my property. Now I don't have to listen to truly bad country singing, over a certainly loud but not clear PA system, every Hickory day. Now they set up a 1/2 mile away and it isn't so hard to ignore. Watching geriatric line dancers is not even interesting to me at my advanced age. Its still an ewwwwww.:-( Profits seem useful for a business that need to buy expensive gear to operate. That gear getting cheaper does lower the barrier for entry for competitors but this is not a bad thing and not new (think Peavey). There has been cheap gear around for a long time. Being able to afford the gear only qualifies you to rent it out, not operate it. You still need to be able to compete to effectively compete. Protectionism would be more like the old guild system or board certification where the established sound companies would band together and require new comers to pass tests and get a license to operate sound systems. This is pervasive in some lower tech occupations like beauticians, barbers, or any occupation that has been around long enough to consolidate power and protect the privileged position by writing their own regulations. "You can't have unlicensed sound companies electrocuting innocent musicians and damaging children's ears with loud music." Auctioning off and policing the frequency spectrum, a public asset, is some of the right kind of work for government. The highest bidder is kind of the public benefit. The government protects over air TV channels in an archaic (in light of the web) protection of the free press (so they can be critical of government. :-) ). Wireless mics for live sound or anything else is not remotely a public benefit. Seems this is the discussion... We managed to capture sound from microphones and feed them into consoles with mundane copper wire for a long time. One might question why is this RF link such a necessity? Now if there is nothing better to do with it, then it's all good. JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Competition: fair/unfair
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
