Why don't more stations webcast? (Was Re: web-WHRB in today's Globe)

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>Dan Bloom wrote:
>The Radio Tracks column in today's Boston Globe gives some nice coverage to
>WHRB's new webcasting setup:
>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/343/living/Harvard_lifts_on_line_to_new_le
>vel+.shtml
>
>Congratulations to WHRB.  (And thanks for making it possible for me consider
>moving just about anywhere -- and still be able to hear "Hillbilly at
>Harvard" each week!)

        After 14,000 failed attempts to get RealPlayer to work on my little
computer, I had the pleasure of hanging out this week on a computer that
works right and listening to a few stations from elsewhere. When I was
checking out the MIT list of stations that put their audio on the web, I
remembered the many comments here that Mel and CBS don't do it for any of
their stations--that some actually discontinued doing it. Also, I saw that
many or even most of the major stations, especially major market AMs, are
not there. So, my topic is: Why would you *not* put your station on the
web? Especially AM stations that have so much trouble penetrating big
office buildings in the downtowns of large cities (and FMs have trouble
with this, too, of course)? IMO, it's another way to reach the at-work
audience, especially. What are the reasons against?

        (BTW, I really liked Kiss 98 in San Francisco, KISQ-FM, at
www.kisq.com. Their positioner is something like "today's soul and
r-and-b." It's a mix of currents and oldies, a lot of '60s and '70s,
Motown. The r-and-b currents set it apart from the dancin' oldies mix we
get around here on the 93.7s in Boston and Hartford.
        The KISQ afternoon guy, 5-9 p.m,. EST, is Lee "Baby" Sims, of WPOP
in the long-ago '60s. He's like a really good throwback to the '60s--real
high-energy, personality jock, with something actual to say in 12 seconds
or less on each talk-up. Two thumbs up. Definitely worth a listen.)