If the FCC, DOJ and NAB think we're going away, they should know better by now. Remember, this stage of the case is only about where a trial will be held and the type of defenses that may be raised. The actual merits of the case have yet to be addressed. The government does not have the right to take property under the protection of unconstitutional law and without judicial redress for the defendant. Instead, faceless companies who, more than not, manage local stations from hundreds of miles away and who have no loyalty to a particular constituency, answer only to advertisers.
Listeners are secondary.
Supporters of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 claimed that the deregulation that now allows a single company to own up to eight stations in one city would mean more programming diversity and more variety. Clearly, that has not been the reality of the Telecom Act. In fact, it has been precisely the opposite, with large companies and their bigger overhead and demand for profits buying out smaller broadcasters who offered specialized programming and who could do so comfortably with less return. It's all relative. Another primary reason we are pursuing our response to the FCC's action and its position on low-power community broadcasting is because of the support listeners and the public have demonstrated for Beat Radio and its locally programmed dance music format.