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

[TVNETDUDE@aol.com]

>>Pretty well, thank you very much.  Streaming is nearly pure  revenue as
far as they are concerned.<<
 
Well that was my point. It's just "cigarette money" to them. How well do  
you think they would do if they had to rely solely on streaming with the same 
 staff and costs they have now? 
 
>>How many people that run from one to a dozen Internet radio  stations
from home will ever see a listener who isn't a friend or  relative?<<<
 
How would you know what is actually on unless you listen to them? What is  
the difference between Solid Gold 105, Greatest Gold, The Best Moldy Oldies  
Ever, etc...? 
 
>>>A good deal, but far less than it costs them to put it in  print.
Distribution costs, however, are only a part of the cost of  publishing
a newspaper -- and they are in a real bind right now because most  of
their readership is online but most of their revenue is still in  print
advertising.  If you fairly allocated costs of content *creation*  on
the basis of aggregate readership, print would make money (still)  and
online would lose money.  (But print without online would lose  money!)<<<
 
Why would it cost a great deal to move their content to online  
distribution? The print writers already created it and it is already in digital  form. 
 
>>>No, the cellular industry will be a source of *cost*, not  revenue.
The cellular industry is interested in selling improved  listening
quality and reduced bandwidth consumption (relative to  unicast
streaming).  That's why they don't want those FM tuners  enabled.<<<
 
I meant for the radio station not the cellular companies. They need all of  
the bandwidth they can get these days. Do cellular providers care whether 
or not  they oversell their newfangled bandwidth hog to consumers when they 
know their  cell towers will be overwhelmed?  Although it would help radio 
stations,  and if someone could come up with a new model that would bring 
people to  listen online to internet only radio stations, why should cellular  
companies pick up the tab for it when they aren't making any money by  
providing it?  Cell companies are there to make a buck and not do the  alleged 
"Public Service" thing broadcasters are supposed to do.
 
Kind of reminds me of carriage fees for local TV stations. You pay me to  
carry my programming and I will sell commercials on top of it. This model I  
think will change with the NBCU and Comcast deal and if the FCC gets  it's 
wish to absorb OTA's BW. Is their a technical reason that TV networks  can't 
simply provide their programming directly to a satellite company or cable  
company or FIOS? The local cable provider becomes the affiliate and they 
don't  have to pay carriage fees to local affiliates.
 
>>>>By providing programming that appeals to a particular  audience,
whether it be based on connection to a particular community,  air
personalities, or playlist -- in other words, the same way  the
successful ones do now.  If there is no unique value proposition  in
the content, there is no reason for consumers to prefer one source
over  another -- and in particular, there is no reason for them to
prefer to rent  content, by listening to advertising or paying
subscription fees, when they  can spend less and buy a copy for
themselves.  That business model is,  if not finished, clearly on its
last legs.<<<<
 
Exactly, most internet radio today is "here listen to my iPod (with  
jingles)"
 
Mike











In a message dated 6/8/2011 11:12:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
wollman@bimajority.org writes:

<<On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:34:04 -0400 (EDT), TVNETDUDE@aol.com  said:

> How well would Sirius and MLB do if they didn't  stream?

Pretty well, thank you very much.  Streaming is nearly  pure revenue as
far as they are concerned.

> How many people that  run from one to a dozen internet radio stations
> from home will ever  see a dime?

How many people that run from one to a dozen Internet radio  stations
from home will ever see a listener who isn't a friend or  relative?

> As for the Globe and the Herald, what could it cost them  to put
> their content on-line?

A good deal, but far less than it  costs them to put it in print.
Distribution costs, however, are only a part  of the cost of publishing
a newspaper -- and they are in a real bind right  now because most of
their readership is online but most of their revenue is  still in print
advertising.  If you fairly allocated costs of content  *creation* on
the basis of aggregate readership, print would make money  (still) and
online would lose money.  (But print without online would  lose money!)

> The cellular industry could be a source of  revenue

No, the cellular industry will be a source of *cost*, not  revenue.
The cellular industry is interested in selling improved  listening
quality and reduced bandwidth consumption (relative to  unicast
streaming).  That's why they don't want those FM tuners  enabled.

> but how would one "Oldies Station" differentiate itself  from
> another?

By providing programming that appeals to a  particular audience,
whether it be based on connection to a particular  community, air
personalities, or playlist -- in other words, the same way  the
successful ones do now.  If there is no unique value proposition  in
the content, there is no reason for consumers to prefer one  source
over another -- and in particular, there is no reason for them  to
prefer to rent content, by listening to advertising or  paying
subscription fees, when they can spend less and buy a copy  for
themselves.  That business model is, if not finished, clearly on  its
last  legs.

-GAWollman