http://disqus.com/by/dougkrile/enWed, 23 Sep 2015 14:38:22 -0000https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2015/09/22/time-has-come-end-outdated-broadcasting-exclusivity-rules#comment-2269566507<p>Arkansas doesn't boast any major-market TV stations, but I can assure you all of our smaller-market stations count on their news and weather presentations as key to their success. Changing the rules would make it easier for the big cable systems to gain a disadvantage during retransmission negotiations that could result in viewers losing their LOCAL station. An out-of-market station that might be imported by the cable system would have no incentive to provide the local coverage viewers expect. Not to mention the high legal fees that might be required to fight these moves in court. Legal fees that could be a real problem for smaller stations.</p>dougkrileWed, 23 Sep 2015 14:38:22 -0000http://www.knowthenetwork.com/2011/05/iphone-backup-101/#comment-204070871<p>I'm still on Outlook 2007. Kinda glad I never upgraded.</p>dougkrileSun, 15 May 2011 11:53:57 -0000http://www.knowthenetwork.com/2011/05/iphone-backup-101/#comment-203865665<p>The office was all set up to use outlook when I took over and changing it seemed more trouble than it was worth. Although the fact that our email provider limits distribution lists to 20 addresses created a huge problem, since I have 200+ members! Constant Contact to the rescue! </p>dougkrileSat, 14 May 2011 22:13:15 -0000http://www.knowthenetwork.com/2011/05/iphone-backup-101/#comment-203862398<p> I use MobileMe only because it puts Outlook into the mix and syncs contacts and calendars from there and makes it available on my iPhone and iPad.  </p>dougkrileSat, 14 May 2011 21:59:17 -0000http://www.arkbroadcasters.org/ark/?p=604#comment-70959531<p>From Jay Bunyard (migrated from old comment system):<br>I support NAB’s decision to have a dialogue with the Music First group as a common courtesy….and because some leading Senators and Representatives asked them to do so. HOWEVER…. since we have over 250 House members (well over half) signed on as co-sponsors of the Local Radio Freedom Act, I can’t see why NAB would give in at this stage of the game. Although some kind of compensation MAY eventually be inevitable, let’s at least put it off for a few years while we can enjoy a majority of Congressional support. Right now, we seem to be in the driver’s seat. Why move over at this point?</p>dougkrileTue, 24 Aug 2010 10:19:09 -0000http://www.arkbroadcasters.org/ark/?p=604#comment-70959443<p>From Sandy Sanford (migrated from old comment system):<br>“That rate structure would be permanent and would require a mutual agreement or an act of Congress to alter.”</p><p>Really? Sorry, but that gives me little confidence!</p><p>Since when has an “Act of Congress” stopped Congress from acting? Let’s not forget, this is nothing more than a transfer of dollars FROM American radio stations TO foreign owned record labels in an effort to keep afloat a business model that is going the way of the daily newspaper!</p><p>By the way, if my U.S. Civics lessons were accurate: “an Act of Congress” means it is passed and then can be applied to another existing statue.</p><p>For example an “Act” can be applied to the existing statue that automatically raises the benefits received by Social Security recepients each year. Then the so-called “permanent fee structure” automatically goes up each year while your congressman says “I had no control over that, it was done by another congress and it was automatic.”</p><p>Plain and Simple: Performers already trade on their star power GIVEN to them by local radio. Now they want to charge us for the GIFT.</p><p>Someone call Michael Corleone, he will wonder why he never thought of this!</p>dougkrileTue, 24 Aug 2010 10:18:40 -0000http://www.arkbroadcasters.org/ark/?p=604#comment-70959358<p>From Rich Moellers (migrated from old comment system):<br>I’m sorry that the recording industry hasn’t adapted their business model to the new reality – however, I strongly disagree with the performance tax. The proposals discussed this afternoon would probably cause station groups such as mine to have to eliminate jobs or services, all so some foreign-owned record company executive can put a jacuzzi in his Learjet.</p>dougkrileTue, 24 Aug 2010 10:18:05 -0000http://www.arkbroadcasters.org/ark/?p=604#comment-70959263<p>From Trey Stafford (migrated from old comment system): <br>The radio industry has modified our revenue models as the climate for our business has changed. Technology, new competitive medias, etc. have driven us to do this. At no time, however, have we “vultured” our clients and partners to find replacement revenue. We’ve developed our own new ideas and streams to find new revenue.</p><p>I am sorry the recording industry hasn’t been as proactive. And it’s not logical for them to “vulture” our industry to replace their lost revenue.</p><p>The proposal, as stated, would cost our company a million dollars a year. There’s no way we will be able to absorb that cost now, or anytime, without casualties.</p>dougkrileTue, 24 Aug 2010 10:17:32 -0000http://dougkrile.com/?p=188#comment-31066811<p>From my point of view, throwing more money at it now would do nothing. I just always wonder if it had been fully funded in the first place it might have been more successful.</p>dougkrileSun, 24 Jan 2010 12:52:55 -0000http://dougkrile.com/2009/11/14/my-new-love/#comment-23500338<p>Given the lack of riders most days, you might be right. Maybe I AM the one!</p>dougkrileWed, 18 Nov 2009 20:58:30 -0000http://dougkrile.com/?p=3#comment-22511608<p>Sure! Would love to. I'll hit your email, too.</p>dougkrileMon, 09 Nov 2009 20:33:53 -0000http://krilefiles.blogspot.com/2009/09/fox-news-vs-world.html#comment-16932513<p>This one was pretty easy to figure out. Fox said nobody else covered the events. My eyes saw it on the other networks. I try not to get caught up in every little bit of back-and-forth on such issues, but this seems pretty darn blatant to me.</p>dougkrileSat, 19 Sep 2009 17:06:34 -0000http://www.involvedcitizens.com/post/189846867#comment-16790316<p>more comment testing<br></p>dougkrileWed, 16 Sep 2009 22:35:36 -0000http://www.involvedcitizens.com/post/189846867#comment-16789730<p>Yes, comments seem to work</p>dougkrileWed, 16 Sep 2009 22:23:41 -0000http://www.involvedcitizens.com/post/189846867#comment-16789627<p>Yes, they are!</p>dougkrileWed, 16 Sep 2009 22:21:42 -0000http://krilefiles.blogspot.com/2009/05/drive-in-theatres.html#comment-9309484<p>I'd heard that a while back, but didn't know if it was still open! How<br>Cool!</p>dougkrileWed, 13 May 2009 22:08:19 -0000http://krilefiles.blogspot.com/2009/02/back-to-bush.html#comment-6211879<p>Just testing. Comment away.</p>dougkrileThu, 12 Feb 2009 13:33:56 -0000