I already pay for god-awful slow DSL and unlimited edge internet (112k, woo) on my phone; I don't really want another internet fee. And since wi-max is probably a decade off in my rural area, the only option is cellular internet. Only one carrier offers anything close to broadband in my entire region and as far as I know it's $60/month for unlimited use.
$60/month for all the internet radio and video in the world (as long as I'm within range of a cell signal) or $13/month for satellite radio, with a limited set of poor quality audio channels and the same syndicated talk radio?
I'll take the $13/month. Much better deal.
I agree. The same can be said for conventional radio v. pay services. The advantage conventional radio has over WiFi is cost. People want local programming but in its absence, will listen to anything that's "free." There's a limit to what we are willing to pay for information/entertainment and as long as "free" (ad supported) options are available, it will attract listeners.
I feel the same way about all these $5-7/mo. fees for podcasts. The public will tire of being "nickel and dimed" to death and ultimately will seek cheaper options. Another aspect is ease of use, but that will diminish in time as people increasingly adapt to technology. An article about broadband v. dial-up in today's Columbus Dispatch seems to support this logic. http://dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/07/03/Broadband_study.ART_ART_07-03-08_A4_8AALBBQ.html?sid=101
Cable didn't kill broadcast TV, it just it. Broadcasting and "narrowcasting" can live side by side. I think of WiFi as an alternative rather than the ultimate delivery system for radio.