WiFi is indeed years away from even remotely approaching the coverage footprint and installed receiver base of conventional radio, or even HD digital radio. However, when it does reach that critical mass of coverage, it then becomes...guess what? Another band of...RADIO! Just like AM, FM and now HD.
Bob, I agree with you 100% about quality of content and programming.
However, if WiFi is merely another band of radio, that’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, its cost structure will be very different from over-the-air, with broadcasters piggy-backing on an infrastructure that they will bear few of the costs of setting up. Therefore it could quickly undermine current business models. One the other hand, it will offer radio an ideal vehicle for reinventing itself, as it has had to do before.
I confess to not being as familiar as you professionals with the economics of transmitting the different radio bands but, unless I’m missing something, it seems to me that the demands of a 50kW radio station both on infrastructure and electrical power would far exceed the comparable expenses of reaching a similar audience by WiFi radio. The costs of setting up and operating a WiFi infrastructure are shared among many more parties than just the radio stations. One such party is the listener who willingly pays a provider just to be hooked up to a high-speed network.
WiFi radio is a long way off, don't kid yourself. How long have cellphones been around? Still plenty of dropped calls, "can you hear me now?", etc. Get outside of major cities and their suburbs and the likelihood of this happening anytime soon get pretty remote. Remember the telcom companies are just as affected by the economy as everyone else. Adding infastructure costs $$$, and there's not much floating around these days.
It probably will happen someday (or maybe something completely new will supersede it), but not anytime soon.
The big "if" here is finding a way to make it pay. No one is going to invest millions without a way to make a return on it.
WiFi radio need not require huge initial investments. Starting small and expanding in small steps would be highly feasible, unlike over-the-air service in which transmission enhancements require non-trivial capital investments and regulatory clearance – which might not be available for technical reasons. A good business model will still be needed to make a return on investment, but lower expenses can translate to lower charges to advertisers. Thinking of how rapidly and suddenly other technologies have taken off and fallen in cost during our lifetimes, I think it’s quite rash to depend on any young technology being years away from widespread adoption. It’s not all that long since people thought cell phones would be confined to businesses and wealthy individuals, and that was when the necessary infrastructure was relatively primitive. WiFi is much further along than that. It may force broadcasters to adapt sooner than they are prepared for. Remember, major cities and their suburbs are where most people are. Besides, rural areas are likely to see the kind of expansion in broadband service that they experienced with electrical power supply under FDR.
And then there’s coverage area. When ALL stations will have the choice of whether to seek an audience that’s very local, world-wide or somewhere in between, I don’t see how WiFi can be considered just another band. I predict that when things shake out, most listeners will be served by WiFi and LPFM, and I don’t think it will be as far in the future as some believe.
Maybe there are flaws in this analysis that I’m not aware of; if so, perhaps someone will point them out.
I would never have understood the possibilities of WiFi radio before actually becoming a regular user. In fact, Bob, had your station not suddenly run into problems with its on-line audio, my AM-FM radio would have been banished to the basement by now. Forget HD; for what it costs, the expansion in choice that it offers is negligible.
