Should the US do like Brazil?

[davideduardo]

Here is a blurb from Barry Miskind's excellent technical website ( http://www.thebdr.net/articles/haps.html )

"Brazil is in the process of moving AM stations to the FM band, specifically the 12 MHz originally occupied by Channels 5 and 6 - 76 to 88 MHz."

Obviously, the government has decided AM can not survive. Unlike Mexico, which moved 75% of its AM's to new FM allocations, Brazil's FM band is already quite well populated and could not accommodate the additional needs of AM moves.

And Brazil is perhaps more mobile/smartphone saturated than the US, yet they must believe that putting the AMs on what is essentially a new band can be successful even if streaming and media usage on phones is very high.

(As a note, in much of Latin America it was always very hard to get new landlines, often being a process that could take months or years and requiring the granting of gratuities to the folks at the phone company. So when mobile phones arrived, they were often a person's or a family's first phone and they took the place of landlines by default, no by preference. So in most nations, cellphone and smartphone ownership is comparable in percentages to that of the US)

 

[wadio]

And Brazil is perhaps more mobile/smartphone saturated than the US, yet they must believe that putting the AMs on what is essentially a new band can be successful even if streaming and media usage on phones is very high.

I think it could succeed in the US:

• If there's unique and compelling programming on the new band (technical considerations aren't AM's only problem.)
• If the new band is available on all cellphones going forward. That's where a great deal of audio content is consumed and will increasingly be consumed in the future.
• If the cost of cell data doesn't continue to drop.
• If some form of truly ubiquitous WiFi doesn't emerge.

Autos? I think by the time it would take to roll out a new band car radio receivers probably won't matter much. Cellphone connectivity is mainly what people will want by then.

 

[TheBigA]

The big problem here is getting the support of an agency called the Federal Communications Commission. They've discussed this idea many times, and are opposed to it.

Here is a link to their AM Revitalization Plan, released yesterday. Nowhere in it does it even mention this idea:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-am-revitalization-first-report-and-order-fnprm-noi

The FCC prefers SELLING the spectrum space to telecom companies rather than giving the space away to profit-making radio companies. Even the idea of using the spectrum space for non-commercial purposes, dedicated to minority ownership, is off the table.

They would also have to mandate the new FM band on all radios manufactured from a certain date, something they don't want to do. They'd have to find someone to sell converters, that would allow the new band to be heard on existing radios, something they don't want to do.

Let's face it: There are two kinds of government: Those that take proactive action to do things to serve their people, and those unable to do anything. We have the latter form of government. It's nice to see how other governments work, but ours won't do this because it's not in the best interests of the government.

 

[kenglish]

You could put digital radio stations on ANY TV channel (not just 5 and 6), by using the existing Digital TV standards. And, every home would already have the equipment to receive them.
That way, you could expose the listeners to your programming, and thereby create a market for portable and car radios that would receive the programs.
It would even be possible to buy a bit of bandwidth from existing TV stations in the market, without having to dedicate a full 6 MHz channel to "radio". A full DTV channel could carry many dozens of audio-only "stations", and would even be able to accommodate surround-sound for certain events (imagine a concert being broadcast in DD5.1, with the potential to listen in surround at home, and stereo in the car).
Now, all we have to do is adjust the copyright laws.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Smartphone FM chips may already be capable of tuning down to 76 MHz in order to accommodate the Japanese market, where the FM band runs from 76 to 90 MHz. Might just take a software/firmware update to get them to tune the entire 76 to 108 MHz spectrum.

I would have liked to have seen the U.S. FM band expanded down to 76 MHz, but the time to have implemented that would have been 20 years ago as part of the overall digital transition on television: Reallocating channels 5 & 6 to FM as of the 2009 switchover date. Missed opportunity, as it would have allowed thousands of current AM stations to move to FM, and given manufacturers plenty of time to get radios with the expanded band into the market. We could have even set aside a slice of the new band for LPFMs, eliminating the co-channel interference issues so many of those stations face.

I skimmed through the FCC's AM revitalization plan, and the one thought that kept running through my head had something to do with the Titanic and deck chairs.

I'll be watching the Brazil situation with interest, as well as India's extensive plans to implement DRM on medium and shortwave.

 

[TheBigA]

Might just take a software/firmware update to get them to tune the entire 76 to 108 MHz spectrum.

Sure. And what would it take to get them to do that?

 

[wadio]

Now, all we have to do is adjust the copyright laws.

BINGO! It all boils down to content. Without unique and compelling content the technology doesn't matter. When content becomes too complicated and expensive to produce, pumping it directly into our brains won't help.

 

[TheBigA]

BINGO! It all boils down to content. Without unique and compelling content the technology doesn't matter.

90 million people use Pandora. What unique & compelling content is on Pandora?

They don't create anything except a platform to hear someone else's content.

 

[gr8oldies]

As mentioned above, the FCC has no interest, and people have no interest in buying new radios. I could program Romanian folk music and that would be unique. Unfortunately it would have few listeners. If the "new band" is supposed to have hyper-niched formats, no one will spend money building a station there. "Unique and compelling content" is NOT a DJ talking about potholes in between songs

 

[KeithE4]

The big problem here is getting the support of an agency called the Federal Communications Commission. They've discussed this idea many times, and are opposed to it....

The FCC prefers SELLING the spectrum space to telecom companies rather than giving the space away to profit-making radio companies. Even the idea of using the spectrum space for non-commercial purposes, dedicated to minority ownership, is off the table.

The FCC is doing what Congress told it to do, via the 2012 Spectrum Act and other laws passed earlier, going back to the early 1990s. They have no other choice; it is the law.

Let's face it: There are two kinds of government: Those that take proactive action to do things to serve their people, and those unable to do anything. We have the latter form of government. It's nice to see how other governments work, but ours won't do this because it's not in the best interests of the government.

You mean it's not in the best interest of both political parties, and the special interests that control them via campaign donations (read: legalized bribery). We haven't had a functioning national government since the early '90s, when Bill Clinton was elected, the current Red/Blue State paradigm formed, and each party started considering the other as an Enemy Of The State, not just the loyal opposition.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC is doing what Congress told it to do,

As I said...it ain't happening, regardless of what might be good for radio, what might be good for the people, what might be good for the spectrum, and what might be happening in other countries. So we can talk about it, but the people who control whether or not it happens are NOT talking about it. So it makes the discussion moot.

 

[K.M. Richards]

There are two kinds of government: Those that take proactive action to do things to serve their people, and those unable to do anything. We have the latter form of government. It's nice to see how other governments work, but ours won't do this because it's not in the best interests of the government.

Nevertheless, every time another country does something like what Brazil is doing, it creates a very, very small amount of pressure on the FCC to do something similar.

Remember, they didn't even consider high-definition television until Japan started experimenting with it.

 

[TheBigA]

Remember, they didn't even consider high-definition television until Japan started experimenting with it.

That was a generation ago.

The only pressure the FCC feels is after lunch, if you know what I mean.

 

[wadio]

90 million people use Pandora. What unique & compelling content is on Pandora?

They don't create anything except a platform to hear someone else's content.

You're kidding of course. Pandora created something that didn't and couldn't exist on broadcast radio. It was unique and compelling when it launched -- now it's how most people want to consume music.

 

[TheBigA]

You're kidding of course. Pandora created something that didn't and couldn't exist on broadcast radio. It was unique and compelling when it launched -- now it's how most people want to consume music.

But it didn't create any CONTENT. That's what you're talking about. The content was created by record labels, and it's available at any streaming site on the internet. Nothing at all unique about that. Pandora doesn't augment that content with anything else. It's no different than playing songs from my own personal record collection.

Pandora is a platform, not content. You're talking about people moving to other platforms, and that move is driven by technology, not content. The content is available anywhere. None of it is unique to Pandora. They're just choosing to consume it on a digital platform rather than an analogue one. Once again, we're talking about technology. If OTA radio was digital, it could offer more stations than the current analogue platform allows, which would make it similar to the internet.

 

[CTListener]

But it didn't create any CONTENT. That's what you're talking about. The content was created by record labels, and it's available at any streaming site on the internet. Nothing at all unique about that. Pandora doesn't augment that content with anything else. It's no different than playing songs from my own personal record collection.

Pandora is a platform, not content. You're talking about people moving to other platforms, and that move is driven by technology, not content. The content is available anywhere. None of it is unique to Pandora. They're just choosing to consume it on a digital platform rather than an analogue one. Once again, we're talking about technology. If OTA radio was digital, it could offer more stations than the current analogue platform allows, which would make it similar to the internet.

No, it would still be radio, programmed by someone else (or a group of someone elses) to please the "average" listener by playing only songs that the fewest potential listeners surveyed dislike, NOT what the greatest number love. Ratings show that that approach works, but Pandora and other online services offer the individual listener the option of hearing ONLY songs they love, by artists they know. The Pandora listener can eliminate all musical discovery or choose which artists/styles he or she wants to hear new music from. Radio is never going to get those listeners back unless the Internet services are eliminated through lawsuits or fees that leave their business model incapable of ever turning a profit.

 

[TheBigA]

No, it would still be radio, programmed by someone else (or a group of someone elses)

Maybe, maybe not. That's not the point.

We're talking about unique and compelling content, and Pandora doesn't create any content. In fact, I'm not aware that ANY streaming site is in the content creation business at all. They simply take existing music that is available anywhere and allow the users to create their own personal mix tape. What Pandora does is no more unique than YouTube, Spotify, or any other similar service.

Radio is never going to get those listeners back unless the Internet services are eliminated through lawsuits or fees that leave their business model incapable of ever turning a profit.

Keep in mind that personal music devices have been available for over 100 years. Pandora is a new digital technology that replaces the turntable and the cassette tape.

It depends what a particular person wants at a particular time. Some people want curated music services put together by someone else. That's a big part of what Beats offers. Same with Slacker and the new Apple Radio. But they're trying to be more like OTA radio, which, according to you, is not what people want. If they don't want it, why are these companies trying to provide it?

But I agree that the business model digital services operate under make them completely impractical. The fact that they don't in fact create any of the content they distribute makes them completely at the whim of the creators.

 

[davideduardo]

We're talking about unique and compelling content, and Pandora doesn't create any content. In fact, I'm not aware that ANY streaming site is in the content creation business at all. T

http://www.pandora.com/music/top-stations

The first screen is just the top Pandora formats, and the sidebar shows hundreds more. These are curated content formats which play their own playlists.

There are even 15 well defined formats just for "Puerto Rico".

These are "radio stations" without jocks and 8 minute stopsets. Apparently a significant percentage of listeners like their radio this way.

 

[wadio]

But it didn't create any CONTENT.

OK, maybe PRESENTATION is a better word. Radio presents the same content but in a different way. Today's listeners prefer an automated mashup -- tomorrow's may want something else.

Nothing is static. [Except AM radio. ;-) ... but I digress.] The point being that Pandora/Spotify, etc. are hot right now. Come up with a different unique and compelling presentation on another platform and it could succeed.

That's the first "If" in my original post.

It's a big "If."

 

[TheBigA]

These are "radio stations" without jocks and 8 minute stopsets. Apparently a significant percentage of listeners like their radio this way.

But there's nothing unique about it. It's using licensed music available anywhere. The only difference is the digital platform, not the content. So technology, not content, is driving this.

The OP is attempting to differentiate this from OTA radio, and from what you say, it's simply doing the exact same thing. In many cases, those curated stations play the exact same music that OTA stations are playing. As for the commercial load, most of the analysis of yesterday's financials lead me to believe that long spots sets are coming soon for Pandora. They have no other way to solve their problem.