Phase out over-the-air signals? (was: Re: WCRB to simulcast on 88.
Wed Jun 8 11:34:04 EDT 2011
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
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
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.
In a message dated 6/7/2011 11:01:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>>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
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest