WOXY has long been an independent station that played what the DJ's and fans liked. They never sold out to corporate rock, and their motto always has been "Corporate Radio SUCKS!
yeah untill they sold out. thats why they are only on the net. in the spring of 04 they announced that they had SOLD their frequency to a corporate rock station. and my god does the new station suck. WOXY as 97.7 is the essence of selling out (not the djs mind you but the former owners). i have no beef with the former owners cashing in. the got a good deal and provided me with a superior product for 9 years. but as soon as you buy the hype that alt stations aren't selling something you have been had.
there are many ways to define monopoly. using an economic and legal definition MS is less monopolistic then it was in the past. the question becomes was it ever a monopoly? and further more did it ever require gov't intervention?
using a market share approach to monopoly is ineffective at best and counter productive at worst. regardless of the amount of market share, the economic concern of monopoly is the ability to levee prices significantly above those of a completive price. bamoule's theory of contestable markets suggest that even if there is only one producer of a good it effects total social welfare little. more importantly is the ability for new rival firms. this is the notion of entry and exit costs.
with market share debunked as a monopoly metric, it seems that price sensitivity becomes a better metric. the lerner index looks at this . when there is any price competition it suggest a lower lerner index score and thus little monopoly power.
ken attula's book World War 3.0, takes a great look at the antitrust case in the 90's and askes the same question. was MS in need of govet intervention? according to ken, even the govermnt's witnesses were hard pressed to say that MS was hurting consumers on a price level (illegal use of monopoly power). and thus not violating sec. 8 of sherman.
the problem with MS in the 90's where the applications of exclusive dealings contracts with computer distriubtors. the exclusive dealings are IMO anticompetitive but they are used frequently in business today with out the concern of antitrust enforcement.
mostleers law (sp?), suggest that MS's market share will eventually be lost to innovation. And it was Schumpeter's "creative destruction" that created MS, ironically it will be the same force that takes them down.
Slashdot Mirror
WOXY has long been an independent station that played what the DJ's and fans liked. They never sold out to corporate rock, and their motto always has been "Corporate Radio SUCKS!
yeah untill they sold out. thats why they are only on the net. in the spring of 04 they announced that they had SOLD their frequency to a corporate rock station. and my god does the new station suck. WOXY as 97.7 is the essence of selling out (not the djs mind you but the former owners). i have no beef with the former owners cashing in. the got a good deal and provided me with a superior product for 9 years. but as soon as you buy the hype that alt stations aren't selling something you have been had.
i like WOXY, i may subscribe.
there are many ways to define monopoly. using an economic and legal definition MS is less monopolistic then it was in the past. the question becomes was it ever a monopoly? and further more did it ever require gov't intervention? using a market share approach to monopoly is ineffective at best and counter productive at worst. regardless of the amount of market share, the economic concern of monopoly is the ability to levee prices significantly above those of a completive price. bamoule's theory of contestable markets suggest that even if there is only one producer of a good it effects total social welfare little. more importantly is the ability for new rival firms. this is the notion of entry and exit costs. with market share debunked as a monopoly metric, it seems that price sensitivity becomes a better metric. the lerner index looks at this . when there is any price competition it suggest a lower lerner index score and thus little monopoly power. ken attula's book World War 3.0, takes a great look at the antitrust case in the 90's and askes the same question. was MS in need of govet intervention? according to ken, even the govermnt's witnesses were hard pressed to say that MS was hurting consumers on a price level (illegal use of monopoly power). and thus not violating sec. 8 of sherman. the problem with MS in the 90's where the applications of exclusive dealings contracts with computer distriubtors. the exclusive dealings are IMO anticompetitive but they are used frequently in business today with out the concern of antitrust enforcement. mostleers law (sp?), suggest that MS's market share will eventually be lost to innovation. And it was Schumpeter's "creative destruction" that created MS, ironically it will be the same force that takes them down.