Phase out over-the-air signals? (was: Re: WCRB to simulcast on 88.7 in

[Garrett Wollman]

<<On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 23:17:52 -0400 (EDT), TVNETDUDE@aol.com said:

> So, who is making money streaming today? Why does it look  like a winner in 
> the future? Streaming is a hobby at best today and with an  unlimited 
> number of possible outlets your station will get  lost.  
 
Sirius XM appears to be "making money streaming today" -- of course,
most of their costs and most of their revenues are related to the
satellite delivery channel and not streaming.  I believe MLB and other
professional sports leagues are making money from streaming.

There is an unlimited number of possible newspapers, yet for some
reason the Globe and the Herald don't "get lost".  Indeed, most
markets have but a single newspaper of any consequence.  The cellular
industry thinks there's a possible revenue source in streaming, which
is one reason they are so strongly opposed to enabling the FM tuners
that come in the handsets they sell -- and they certainly have some
incentive both to make streaming radio succeed and to limit the number
of channels that will be available to the typical consumer.  (The
problem is the use of a unicast model for streaming, but I expect that
they are already installing proxies in MTSOs that could fix that given
some sort of agreement with content providers.)

There is nothing magical about "streaming"; it's not a different
medium, just a different delivery technology.  Whether the programming
succeeds will depend -- just as traditional broadcasting does -- to a
large part on luck and, just as importantly, on having programming
that people actually care to listen to, that they can't get from any
other source.  That's why network exclusivity developed in the 1930s,
personality DJs in the 1950s, and personality talk hosts in the 1980s
and 1990s.

-GAWollman