Phase out over-the-air signals? (was: Re: WCRB to simulcast on 88.

[TVNETDUDE@aol.com]

How well would Sirius and MLB do if they didn't stream? How  many people 
that run from one to a dozen internet radio stations from  home will ever see 
a dime? 
 
As for the Globe and the Herald, what could it cost them to  put their 
content on-line? They are also newspapers in a major city so why  wouldn't 
people check it out for free? Newspapers aren't doing that well either.  Why wait 
for news in a newspaper when it always available?
 
The cellular industry could be a source of revenue but how  would one 
"Oldies Station" differentiate itself from another? I listen  online to oldies 
when I am in my office and the only way to really see what  you like is to 
listen to each one. 
Not too bad for a radio dial but a real pain when there are  forty or fifty 
to choose from and they play pretty much the same  music.
 
No there is nothing magic about streaming but until someone  finds a real 
use for it I don't see it really going anywhere as a money-maker.  Perhaps 
the problem is that most internet radio stations use the same format or  style 
that the OTA stations use. The OTA stations aren't doing as well as they  
used to so why would you copy one? 
 
This seems to happen with anything that is relatively new.  Take something 
old and try to apply it to something new. For some reason ATSC  comes to 
mind.
It happened with the transition to DTV also. The "lab" station  at WRC 
(WHD) in DC was the same way. When the transition took place what  the stations 
had was entirely different from what was at WHD. I never could  understand 
who would pay 110K for a tape machine anyway.
 
Radio and Newspapers were the only game in town in the 30's.  Then came TV 
and there were three. There were once three commercial TV networks. 
 
It is too bad but I feel, when the older radio listeners are  gone, radio 
will be gone. To me it doesn't matter if it is in five, ten, or  twenty years 
it will be gasping for breath long before it  ends.
 
Mike
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/7/2011 11:01:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
boston-radio-interest-request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org writes:

>>>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.<<