• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

If you can't pick us up where you live ...

Move!

I thought they were going to tell us to go online. Which you can.

Depends on what the online service offers. I'm in metro Phoenix, and I just started subscribing to YouTube TV. While I've been happy with the service, it does omit some OTA channels, specifically PBS (KAET/8), TBN (KPAZ/21) and CW (KASW/61). It also does not air any of the LPTV/Class A stations or any subchannels at all. Channel 8 is supposedly on the way within the next few months, and I don't care about 21, but I've heard nothing about 61. I know it's going away to become an ATSC 3.0 test bed, but the CW as a network has not been addressed AFAIK.
 
Depends on what the online service offers. I'm in metro Phoenix, and I just started subscribing to YouTube TV. While I've been happy with the service, it does omit some OTA channels, specifically PBS (KAET/8), TBN (KPAZ/21) and CW (KASW/61). It also does not air any of the LPTV/Class A stations or any subchannels at all. Channel 8 is supposedly on the way within the next few months, and I don't care about 21, but I've heard nothing about 61. I know it's going away to become an ATSC 3.0 test bed, but the CW as a network has not been addressed AFAIK.

YouTube TV had announced a Nov. 4 start for PBS and PBS Kids, but apparently someone got cold feet or wanted more moolah or both. Apparently, YouTube's flacks are still giving out a vague "by the end of 2019" for the debut of the two channels on their service:
https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/when-will-pbs-come-to-youtube-tv-you-asked-we-answer/
 
Perhaps they don't want to pay the additional music royalties required by online broadcasting.

You're probably hoping so, given your previously stated expectations of royalties' crippling effects on all things internet.

But seeing as how so many of the networks and stations YTTV does carry do broadcast music, I find it improbable that one or two additional channels would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Besides, going from $40 to $50 hasn't slowed its growth, has it? Maybe a $5 jump to $55 would cover the additional payments.
 
Perhaps they don't want to pay the additional music royalties required by online broadcasting.

I'm sure such things are already figured into the cost of doing business.
 
>>Perhaps they don't want to pay the additional music royalties required by online broadcasting.

Bob Bittner's WJIB Cambridge MA, like his stations in Maine,do not streamcast for cost
reasons and also fundraise despite having commercial licenses. (He refuses to run ads!) Two of his stations do have FM translators.I have pointed out to listeners that the only way to get WJIB, or WJTO Bath ME, on their smartphones is to live within range of the FM translators and use an FM radio app if their phone has an FM chip. Not an online stream but it'll get the signal IF you're in range.

Beautiful music KAHM in AZ used to screencast but when XM temporarily dropped their Escape channel, fans of the format flocked to the KAHM stream resulting in increased costs.For a time they dropped the stream then brought it back for a $20 monthly fee.They still may be offering a stream but maybe $10 now?Not sure.

WJIB costs for a stream may be prohibitive because they are licensed as a commercial station and with a high amount of people on via stream it may result in huge costs..even though some WJIB fans said they wouldn't mind paying (a fee? A crowd funding effort?)
Still no stream.
 
>>Perhaps they don't want to pay the additional music royalties required by online broadcasting.

Bob Bittner's WJIB Cambridge MA, like his stations in Maine,do not streamcast for cost
reasons and also fundraise despite having commercial licenses. (He refuses to run ads!) Two of his stations do have FM translators.I have pointed out to listeners that the only way to get WJIB, or WJTO Bath ME, on their smartphones is to live within range of the FM translators and use an FM radio app if their phone has an FM chip. Not an online stream but it'll get the signal IF you're in range.

Or via an online SDR, if there are any in those stations' coverage areas. Speaking of which, why don't the operators of such websites have to pay royalties on all the music played on radio stations that their users stream?
 
Any answer to my question a few posts back about the legality of online SDRs on sites like GlobalTuners being used to listen to stations playing music? Is it up to the owner of the website or the owner of the individual receiver being used to do the bookkeeping and pay for the music?
 
Since music heard on AM isn't tagged, I don't know how the music industry would even charge for it. Aside from that, generally 1 to 4 users can operate the receiver at all times, I'm thinking "for experimental and scientific purposes only" would keep the rent-seekers at bay.


Or via an online SDR, if there are any in those stations' coverage areas. Speaking of which, why don't the operators of such websites have to pay royalties on all the music played on radio stations that their users stream?
 
Since music heard on AM isn't tagged, I don't know how the music industry would even charge for it. Aside from that, generally 1 to 4 users can operate the receiver at all times, I'm thinking "for experimental and scientific purposes only" would keep the rent-seekers at bay.



Most of the SDRs at GlobalTuners receive 88-108 and I often find them tuned to local FM stations when they're free for others to use. That's when I start scanning the shortwave bands on them. So plenty of FM music is being listened to, sometimes for extended periods.
 
Any answer to my question a few posts back about the legality of online SDRs on sites like GlobalTuners being used to listen to stations playing music? Is it up to the owner of the website or the owner of the individual receiver being used to do the bookkeeping and pay for the music?

Since the users have control over the tuner, the owner isn’t making money, and the content is not the primary reason for listening to the SDR, it falls under “fair use”. Similar to how an electronics store can have boom boxes on display blasting music, and not have to pay royalties for music when customers play the radio.
 
Most of the SDRs at GlobalTuners receive 88-108 and I often find them tuned to local FM stations when they're free for others to use. That's when I start scanning the shortwave bands on them. So plenty of FM music is being listened to, sometimes for extended periods.

Not necisarily, though I can see why you would think that, as I have several airchecks I recorded that way. In fact, it's how I got all of what I have from NYC, Phili, and Detroit. When I had a receiver up, for a time I had the server revert it back to its default, which was Star 101.5. I know some other recievers did that as well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom