I don't have a problem with the FCC putting certain limits on what can be said or done on publicly owned airwaves, my problem is that enforcement is inconsistent and the rules are frequently inane and contradictory.

I'm not particularly clear on why Sirius and the other one are exempt from FCC regulation. Yes, you have to pay to listen and special equipment is needed but they must still be broadcasting over segments of EM band licensed from the government (unlike cable, which circumvents the physically limited publicly-owned medium completely).

Could a traditional radio station avoid FCC sanction if they encrypted their signal and distributed decrypting equipment?

Isn't that what the kids call a webcast?

After thinking a bit more about it, I agree. He isn't the best spokesperson for free speech. He is very easy to pass off because he is rude, can be crude and does go as far as he can. I still think it beyond sucks that he left the public airwaves but I suspect he would have left for the money Sirius offered him regardless of the FCC.

Grr. I don't recall hearing about that. Whatever happened to if you don't like it turn it off? Or should we just go back to the days when married TV couples sleep in seperate beds.

Actually it is what radio already is (everybody just uses the same encryption protocol and relies on the same third-party decryption devices).

That's why I'm not clear on how beaming it from a satellite gets around the rules that beaming it from a tall tower subjects you to.

I think they're going with the subscription thing...must be 18 or older to subscribe, after all.

Its actually very similar to cable, as there is a lot of bandwidth within that on frequency that they shoot down, they can put a lot of channels on one frequency, so there is a lot less of a perceived scarcity of frequency band... snot much different then satellite TV, only they can probably fit a lot more channels on satellite radio then they can on satellite TV....

Road trip in Allybells car! SHOTGUN!