Mike Walker said:
Would you agree the majority of people NEVER search Google for HD radio also? What incentive would they do so?
Radiopilot
-
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
"HD DOA"
- Thread starter PocketRadio
- Start date
Would you agree the majority of people NEVER search Google for HD radio also? What incentive would they do so?
Radiopilot
M
Mike Walker
Guest
I'd say the majority of people HAVEN'T HEARD OF HD RADIO YET. They think they have, so they answer "yes" when asked, because it sounds so similar to HDTV, which they've seen on their tv screens for the last decade. So yes, I'd agree RadioPilot that most people don't search for HD radio. Or Pepper shakers. Or socks. Or puppies. Or Chevrolet Impalas. All of which seem to do just fine without Google searches!
I use Google to search for things I can't find in books, or elsewhere. There are things I shop for online, and others I don't. I usually shop for radios the same way I do (or used to do...I've been married 30 years!) for companionship...in person, by TOUCHING!
I use Google to search for things I can't find in books, or elsewhere. There are things I shop for online, and others I don't. I usually shop for radios the same way I do (or used to do...I've been married 30 years!) for companionship...in person, by TOUCHING!
Mike Walker said:
"In-Stat: Digital Radio Set to Take Off"
"In 2006, 73 percent of respondents to an In-Stat U.S. consumer survey were aware of HD Radio on some level."
http://radiomagonline.com/eyeoniboc/instat-digital-radio-set/
"Bridge Ratings: Sweat the cell phone and don't count on HD"
"In other words, Bridge says interest in HD radio is decreasing even as your station works hard to increase awareness. What can I possibly add to this honest and bleak picture that I haven't said before? My well-intended warnings about HD's "premature death" seem to be rearing their ugly heads almost two years later. I take zero pleasure in being right about this because it all could have been prevented - and perhaps it still can be. Start by re-reading the 2005 article or for more discussion buy my book."
http://www.hear2.com/2007/04/bridge_ratings_.html
This whole HD Radio thing really cracks-me-up !
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Do Bridge Ratings happen to mention that ALL streaming music could end on May 15th? Does THAT "crack you up"? Do they mention that almost no streaming station ANYWHERE makes money? Does THAT "crack you up"?
Facts are a dangerous thing!
Facts are a dangerous thing!
Mike Walker said:
Actually, all streamers have been given a two month reprieve while our elected officials try to do whatever it is monkeys do with footballs. The new drop dead date is July 15.
I'll go out on a limb and predict that something will be worked out and many Internet broadcasters will survive. It looks like we will by a stroke of luck. Because we are an actual licensed over the air broadcaster, and because we are a real live 501(c)(3) organization, it appears that we qualify for the flat rate of $500 per year. That is until we surpass 194,000 or so listener hours per month. That works out to be something a little less that 250 people listening 24/7. We're a long way from that, so for now it will be OK. Of course, if every one else goes away, we might get more popular. Be careful what you wish for…
Sound Exchange’s new song reporting requirements are an entirely different story. They want song reporting from us retroactive to April 2004. We do have the records in our log, but assembling it into a format that is acceptable to Sound Exchange would be a horrific ordeal. It looks like a full time 40 hour per week job for someone just to handle the paperwork. I can't say that I'm very happy about that.
I wonder what Bridge ratings has to say about that? Don't they have an answer to just about everything?
M
Mike Walker
Guest
A percentage of income would be fair, just as with commercial radio. For the life of me, I don't see what the record industry has against internet radio. Commercial radio is so structured, there is virtually no chance for new music to be heard (something that hopefully HD multicasting will help fix). For internet broadcasting to survive, and thrive, it seems to me that they should (and the best ones are) ALL OVER types of music that can't be heard elsewhere. Which means exposing MORE people to MORE types of music from MORE new artists who aren't exactly mainstream. All to the good of EVERYONE, right? If only the record companies had seen the internet as a great new tool a few years back, rather than a threat! Pretty damn sad.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
You're right Chuck. It is greed. And there's nothing wrong with greed per-se. After all, capitalism without greed just doesn't work. But some greed is just stupid. Obviously (to me) the record companies will do better if they let webcasters expose people to more different kinds of music!
Remember in the 80s when Jack Valenti (God rest his recently departed soul) said the VCR would spell "the death of the film industry". WRONG! It was it's savior! So could internet radio be for the record industry, if they'd work WITH webcasters rather than against them!
Remember in the 80s when Jack Valenti (God rest his recently departed soul) said the VCR would spell "the death of the film industry". WRONG! It was it's savior! So could internet radio be for the record industry, if they'd work WITH webcasters rather than against them!
Mike Walker said:
Exactly. They will sell a lot more records if people have the opportunity to be exposed to new (or even old) music. The VCR and DVD player certainly did not hurt the film industry, and despite predictions to the contrary, they keep building new movie theaters all over the place. I doubt they are doing that for health reasons...
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Hell Chuck, forget new music. Imagine how much wonderful OLD music, the kind your station plays, is NEVER heard by new generations who would LOVE IT if only given a chance! Imagine the next potential Diana Krall is out there somewhere, but she may never find her "voice" because she's never heard Ella or Nat! Pretty sad!
Mike Walker said:
You're right. All these record companies have a huge inventory of stuff THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR! In the great scheme of things it costs very little to reissue old recordings, assuming there are willing buyers out there to scoop them off of the shelves. Of course, the easiest way to get those buyers interested is to let them hear a sample. Drug dealers figured that out a long time ago...
In fact, I can offer as anecdotal evidence a record and book store in Longview, Texas. It is a very large store, maybe 20,000 square feet or so. When we first signed on the air, they had a "Jazz and Standards" display didn't even fill one six foot display bin. There might have been 20 CD's to choose from. Now, several years later, they have a whole aisle section devoted to this kind of music. They are stocking some really great stuff. I will humbly sugest that they are stocking it because people come in the store and ask for it. I will also bet that they are asking for it because they have heard Ella, Frank, Dean, Rosie, etc. on the radio. Funny how that could happen...
oaktree said:
Exponential... I can't say. I will say that as more HD programming choices become available, more people will have an interest in HD radio.
In my market, there is ONE HD station. With one "Talk" hd 2. As a geek, I have an HD radio. My owner is putting an FM on in the next year. You can bet you booty it will be HD. (Go Multicast) I'm doing Projections on it now. The "Couple of Grand a month" in the HD programming revenue is in that projection. It's not mainstream now, but it very well could be in the next few years.
I was an internet broadcaster about 10 years ago. (When Real Audio 3.0 came out.)
It was a complete joke as far as revenue went then. Now it's not viable, but it's not all that far off.
Back then the concern was that you had to busy out your phne to listen to the radio.
Times change. Give HD 10 years. THings very well could change.
Clouseau
clouseau said:
Clouseau
You are right and give WIFI Internet radio 10 years too and see where the new devices and the total availability of it will be in homes, cars, airplanes, etc. including portables... HD won't even come close unless they try to emulate it.
Radiopilot
M
Mike Walker
Guest
There's no wi-fi technology that can reach a hundred miles with a single transmitter and tower, offering multiple channels as can a single class-c fm HD station. And no technology ont he horizon would allow this. Wi-fi will always be limited in scope. The phone companies have made it clear that they'll sue any attempt at widespread adoption of city-wide wi-fi. And even if they're unsuccessful, it will still be limited, and will be used mostly for "googling". People will use portable computing devices now for basically what they use portable and desktop devices for now. Under 30 percent of Americans listen to internet radio regularly while at their computers, and a huge chunk of that is to the web-streams of terrestrial stations.
Before you whine that it ain't so, 30 percent of Americans listening to internet radio is HUGE. It makes it far bigger than satellite and HD combined (to date). Internet radio IS the "big dog" that's threatening terrestrial...not silly ipods, or other devices that offer an alternate way to listen to MY OWN music library. People listen to the radio for music they don't own, companionship, news, sports, traffic, weather, gardening tips, computer shows (I do anyway), pet shows, oh...and political talk. NONE OF WHICH is available on your ipod (excluding podcasts which reach a FAR narrower range of people than streaming audio. I know, I both webcast and podcast, and have for years).
So you guys have several things wrong. "The sky may fall" on terrestrial radio (I don't think it's possible, but let's say it is for the sake of argument). If it does fall, it won't be because of podcasts, or Ipods, wi-fi, or satellite radio. It'll be plain ole' streaming content, which sounds better and better. Just four or five short years ago, internet radio was intermittent on even a broadband connection, and sounded bad besides. Now sound can be stunningly good, and playback rock solid.
I'd love to be able to add internet radio to my in-car and portable listening. But lawsuits from wireless phone companies will likely keep that from happening without data plans which cost a helluva lot more than satellite, and HD will still offer lots of great-sounding stations, with local content, and NO cost...with an analog fallback for when digital doesn't quite reach...NONE OF WHICH the other technologies can touch.
Before you whine that it ain't so, 30 percent of Americans listening to internet radio is HUGE. It makes it far bigger than satellite and HD combined (to date). Internet radio IS the "big dog" that's threatening terrestrial...not silly ipods, or other devices that offer an alternate way to listen to MY OWN music library. People listen to the radio for music they don't own, companionship, news, sports, traffic, weather, gardening tips, computer shows (I do anyway), pet shows, oh...and political talk. NONE OF WHICH is available on your ipod (excluding podcasts which reach a FAR narrower range of people than streaming audio. I know, I both webcast and podcast, and have for years).
So you guys have several things wrong. "The sky may fall" on terrestrial radio (I don't think it's possible, but let's say it is for the sake of argument). If it does fall, it won't be because of podcasts, or Ipods, wi-fi, or satellite radio. It'll be plain ole' streaming content, which sounds better and better. Just four or five short years ago, internet radio was intermittent on even a broadband connection, and sounded bad besides. Now sound can be stunningly good, and playback rock solid.
I'd love to be able to add internet radio to my in-car and portable listening. But lawsuits from wireless phone companies will likely keep that from happening without data plans which cost a helluva lot more than satellite, and HD will still offer lots of great-sounding stations, with local content, and NO cost...with an analog fallback for when digital doesn't quite reach...NONE OF WHICH the other technologies can touch.
Mike Walker said:
Well, London, England signed on its seamless wi-fi network in March of this year. It is limited right now, but expected to grow to encompass the entire city. I know that isn't in the USA, but things have a way of migrating across the pond.
Even the little town of Kilgore, Texas has an amazing amount of wi-fi hot spots. Anyone wanting free Internet access can just drop by and log on. Sure, most people are "Googling" but you can listen to audio streams if you like. Nothing is stopping you.
Right now, the wi-fi system isn't set up like a cell phone system, where it hands off the user from one site to another, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think that someday it could. Give it ten years, and we'll see where we are.
I know that everyone thinks I'm Anti-HD. I'm not. I would love to see it work and not cause more problems than it solves. Maybe in ten years that will be the case. In the mean time, the best you can say is that it is an interesting spectator sport.
The dog has won a reprieve.
Mike, I disagree.
I don't think that "max-fi" will be free on a municipal or city-wide basis, but I don't believe that the phone companies are going to have much of a say in the wireless technology out of running to see who can be first to "charter" a franchise for city-wide coverage, as is the case in London and, soon, in San Francisco. L.A. is to come online city-wide in less than two years.
In my community of 27,000 - I can wifi "hotspots" on a regular basis at the beach, in several parks, in restaurants, in the library (or even near it,) in schools (and surrounding areas) and in other places where people congregate.
Those services won't be shut down by any regulation ... they are already there and growing.
And the technology from Torian Wireless and its Internet only radio, Roku, San Disk and others will be a huge fight to prevent the phone companies from monopolizing those city-wide franchises, just as cable companies are now doing for broadband and wireless.
I think it will be months to maybe two years before the devices beat it to the retailers and the phone companies can sue all they want...because they'll want to be in on the action and find that they've already fallen way behind.
Mike, I disagree.
I don't think that "max-fi" will be free on a municipal or city-wide basis, but I don't believe that the phone companies are going to have much of a say in the wireless technology out of running to see who can be first to "charter" a franchise for city-wide coverage, as is the case in London and, soon, in San Francisco. L.A. is to come online city-wide in less than two years.
In my community of 27,000 - I can wifi "hotspots" on a regular basis at the beach, in several parks, in restaurants, in the library (or even near it,) in schools (and surrounding areas) and in other places where people congregate.
Those services won't be shut down by any regulation ... they are already there and growing.
And the technology from Torian Wireless and its Internet only radio, Roku, San Disk and others will be a huge fight to prevent the phone companies from monopolizing those city-wide franchises, just as cable companies are now doing for broadband and wireless.
I think it will be months to maybe two years before the devices beat it to the retailers and the phone companies can sue all they want...because they'll want to be in on the action and find that they've already fallen way behind.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Oaktree I don't think the phone companies SHOULD have much to say about it. It ain't phone technology! But they have already sued, or threatened to sue various municipalities in the US.
Frankly I don't care HOW digital radio (local and national) is delivered. "Bits is bits". Hell, I'm already paying for broadband internet (cable...5mbps). If I can get that wirelessly for about the same money, it's a no-brainer (cable goes out occasionally...because it's freakin' delivered on a CABLE! Wires break. Amplifiers burn out.)
HD and internet are not, to my mind, competing technologies, as they don't deliver EXACTLY the same thing...and one of 'em is free.
Frankly I don't care HOW digital radio (local and national) is delivered. "Bits is bits". Hell, I'm already paying for broadband internet (cable...5mbps). If I can get that wirelessly for about the same money, it's a no-brainer (cable goes out occasionally...because it's freakin' delivered on a CABLE! Wires break. Amplifiers burn out.)
HD and internet are not, to my mind, competing technologies, as they don't deliver EXACTLY the same thing...and one of 'em is free.
- Status