HD RADIO IS A DIVERSION FROM THE REAL THREAT TO LOCAL RADIO

[Radioman100]

The game is changing now at hyper-speed. Watch this video:

http://www.myride.com/research/editorial/video/makeandmodel/viewer.html?videoId=1040

Now read this article:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rola-show-off-wimax-on-the-chicago-river.html

This is a major revolution. Don't be left in the dust. I suspect the leading names in "radio" ten years from today will not be recognizable to most present-day broadcasters.

I don't have to read or watch anything. If a new medium comes along that challenges radio's superiority in any meaningful way, I'll be very surprised. Will some erosion occur? Of course, but we've had satellite radio available for many years now and they've had almost no impact on terrestrial radio. Satellite is also available everywhere and for a very low monthly fee, lower than any wireless internet solution. The hardware to receive it is way cheaper too.

Will free wireless internet become available and change everything? Maybe, but it faces an uphill battle. Where I live they just canceled a citywide low cost wi-fi project because of horrendous cost overruns and delays.

You can guess all you want about the future of internet radio. Considering my primary role in the business (broadcast IT - automation) I'm sure I have a long and healthy career ahead of me either way, whether I'm working for WXXX or the local newspaper's radio station (LOL.)

Personally, I don't care. I'm here to discuss HD Radio.

 

[vsa]

The game is changing now at hyper-speed. Watch this video:

http://www.myride.com/research/editorial/video/makeandmodel/viewer.html?videoId=1040

Now read this article:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rola-show-off-wimax-on-the-chicago-river.html

This is a major revolution. Don't be left in the dust. I suspect the leading names in "radio" ten years from today will not be recognizable to most present-day broadcasters.

I don't have to read or watch anything. If a new medium comes along that challenges radio's superiority in any meaningful way, I'll be very surprised.

I'm here to discuss HD Radio.

You are unwilling to watch a short video about Ford making it a piece of cake to listen to Internet radio in your car TODAY. You're also afraid to pull your head out of the sand to read about Motorola and Sprint's real-time preview of Mobile WIMAX in Chicago. I agree with you. You WILL be very SURPRISED.

Ford's Sync and Sprint's Xohm Mobile WIMAX are just two technologies that are about to reshape the world of radio and leave HD radio forever in the dust. HD radio sales have been, are, and will continue to go nowhere - to some extent because of these competing technologies.

 

[Radioman100]

You are unwilling to watch a short video about Ford making it a piece of cake to listen to Internet radio in your car TODAY. You're also afraid to pull your head out of the sand to read about Motorola and Sprint's real-time preview of Mobile WIMAX in Chicago. I agree with you. You WILL be very SURPRISED.

Ford's Sync and Sprint's Xohm Mobile WIMAX are just two technologies that are about to reshape the world of radio and leave HD radio forever in the dust. HD radio sales have been, are, and will continue to go nowhere - to some extent because of these competing technologies.

You didn't mention what the links were about, you just said to watch and read them. Sorry. I'm a busy guy.

But now that you bottom line it, I'll share my observations. I know a lot of people with mobile broadband cards, including myself. They all fail to work - regularly. One of my stations had a remote in the 'burbs last week and we tried a Comrex access with AT&T broadband card. No signal at all in an affluent suburb of a very major city. This weekend we did another remote smack dab in the middle of the metro with the same device and it kept dropping the connection.

You think wi-fi is ready for mobile applications in cars? I've got this terrific oceanfront property in Oklahoma. I'll make ya one hell of a deal on it.

And oh yeah, did I mention the very major city I live in just scrapped its plans for low cost universal wi-fi. Seems that the company they awarded the contract to was having real issues building out the network and meeting deadlines.

Perhaps real, reliable mobile internet access will be a reality someday, but that day isn't today, it isn't tomorrow, next week or even next year. Five years from now? Maybe, but look who's bringing it to you. Sprint? I'd really like it if they'd fix their freakin' cell service first and they've been in that business since 1993.

Mobile internet radio - powered by the same people that have to put out billboards, TV spots and radio ads bragging about how they have "the fewest dropped calls." I can hear it now... Listen to VSA's newspaper "radio" on the network that drops your connection less than anyone else, unless you're driving through the 'burbs, cause then you're pretty much screwed.

 

[dbdigital]

You are unwilling to watch a short video about Ford making it a piece of cake to listen to Internet radio in your car TODAY. You're also afraid to pull your head out of the sand to read about Motorola and Sprint's real-time preview of Mobile WIMAX in Chicago. I agree with you. You WILL be very SURPRISED.

Ford's Sync and Sprint's Xohm Mobile WIMAX are just two technologies that are about to reshape the world of radio and leave HD radio forever in the dust. HD radio sales have been, are, and will continue to go nowhere - to some extent because of these competing technologies.

And oh yeah, did I mention the very major city I live in just scrapped its plans for low cost universal wi-fi. Seems that the company they awarded the contract to was having real issues building out the network and meeting deadlines.

When you combine a failing company like Earthlink with local government nothing's going to succeed, not even HD Radio could survive such a lethal pairing.

But Sprint is not the only company who is investing and building out WiMax. Apple, Microsoft, Intel and Google are also investors. Intel is supposed to have low cost, low power WiMax chips out next year. The other companies will be bidding in the upcoming 700 Mhz auction as well as offering software support. So these are exciting times for "digital broadcasting".

As for Sprint's occasional dropped calls, aren't we hearing similar complaints about HD Radio's unreliable signal, particularly HD-AM?

BTW, Sprint is announcing a nationwide rollout of WiMax in all major markets in the U.S. by the end of 2008. It will be here sooner than you think.

db

 

[vsa]

You are unwilling to watch a short video about Ford making it a piece of cake to listen to Internet radio in your car TODAY. You're also afraid to pull your head out of the sand to read about Motorola and Sprint's real-time preview of Mobile WIMAX in Chicago. I agree with you. You WILL be very SURPRISED.

Ford's Sync and Sprint's Xohm Mobile WIMAX are just two technologies that are about to reshape the world of radio and leave HD radio forever in the dust. HD radio sales have been, are, and will continue to go nowhere - to some extent because of these competing technologies.

You didn't mention what the links were about, you just said to watch and read them.  Sorry.  I'm a busy guy.

But now that you bottom line it, I'll share my observations.  I know a lot of people with mobile broadband cards, including myself.  They all fail to work - regularly.  One of my stations had a remote in the 'burbs last week and we tried a Comrex access with AT&T broadband card.  No signal at all in an affluent suburb of a very major city.  This weekend we did another remote smack dab in the middle of the metro with the same device and it kept dropping the connection.

You think wi-fi is ready for mobile applications in cars?  I've got this terrific oceanfront property in Oklahoma.  I'll make ya one hell of a deal on it.

And oh yeah, did I mention the very major city I live in just scrapped its plans for low cost universal wi-fi.  Seems that the company they awarded the contract to was having real issues building out the network and meeting deadlines.

Perhaps real, reliable mobile internet access will be a reality someday, but that day isn't today, it isn't tomorrow, next week or even next year.  Five years from now?  Maybe, but look who's bringing it to you.  Sprint?  I'd really like it if they'd fix their freakin' cell service first and they've been in that business since 1993.

Mobile internet radio - powered by the same people that have to put out billboards, TV spots and radio ads bragging about how they have "the fewest dropped calls."  I can hear it now...  Listen to VSA's newspaper "radio" on the network that drops your connection less than anyone else, unless you're driving through the 'burbs, cause then you're pretty much screwed.

Using most of your own words, I'm going to respond with a little bit of substitution. Here goes.

"You didn't mention what the links were about, you just said to watch and read them.  Sorry.  I'm a busy guy.

But now that you bottom line it, I'll share my observations.  I know a lot of people with HD radio receivers, including myself.  They all fail to work - regularly.  One of my stations had a remote in the 'burbs last week and we tried to monitor it with an HD radio.  No signal at all in an affluent suburb of a very major city.  This weekend we did another remote smack dab in the middle of the metro with the same device and it kept dropping the connection.

You think HD radio is ready for mobile applications in cars?  I've got this terrific oceanfront property in Oklahoma.  I'll make ya one hell of a deal on it.

Perhaps real, reliable HD radio reception will be a reality someday, but that day isn't today, it isn't tomorrow, next week or even next year.  Five years from now?  Maybe, but look who's bringing it to you.  iBiquity?  I'd really like it if they'd spend some money on product quality and marketing. This science fair project has been in the works since 1993.

HD radio - powered by the same people that have to depend on corporate radio donated radio ads bragging about how they have these stations between the stations.  I can hear it now...  Listen to HD radio, the stations that keep dropping out, especially when you're driving through the 'burbs, and you're pretty much screwed."


I never thought Wi-Fi was a good way to blanket a city or other large area with wireless Internet access. It is an ideal way to distribute connectivity around your home, workplace or in the vicinity of your preferred method of transportation. AT&T's wireless access is a joke. Verizon's and Sprint's EV-DO is much better. Sprint is the first with Mobile WIMAX. It's equivalent to today's wired DSL or cable access. By all appearances, Sprint will be bringing out Mobile WIMAX the right way, not like any cell phone company to date.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rola-show-off-wimax-on-the-chicago-river.html

 

[Radioman100]

In the software industry, they call this stuff vaporware. I'll believe it when I see it.

Hey vsa, wasn't it about this time last year you and Mark Ramsey were saying the iPhone would be the death of radio? Funny. We're somehow still keeping the lights on here, and I've yet to meet anyone using their iPhone to listen to streaming audio.

The internet is practically everywhere. It's in virtually every office and every home, and has been for years now. So far internet radio has, by your own numbers, managed to attract an audience of just over 6 million listeners. That's about half what satellite radio has, and unlike satellite radio most internet radio is free. Impressive! Oh yeah, throw out the 1.3 million online listeners Clear Channel has, since that's just webcasts of terrestrial stations. Even more impressive!

I suppose I'm supposed to believe the only reason internet radio isn't catching on is its lack of portability? Satellite radio is portable. Why aren't they just slaughtering those big, arrogant radio corporations with their annoying DJs, repetitive music and commercials?

Could it be that people just aren't interested? Could it be that they're actually happy with free, over the air local radio?

Could it be that many of the same people that couldn't set the clock on their VCRs and get their PCs infected with spyware and viruses just don't need anything more high tech than radio to meet their aural entertainment needs?

Could it also be true that HD Radio will deliver them more content choices in the same convenient and comfortable format they've grown accustomed to? This is why HD Radio will succeed.

Just because someone can listen to a newfangled technology doesn't mean they will. Let's assume the best for internet radio. WiMax is a raging success and the internet is truly mobile. It's everywhere, it's reliable and wireless internet audio devices are plentiful.

Those devices are going to have to be configured. Ut oh... Most of the people I know have no idea how to set up their e-mail in Outlook. How much luck are they going to have configuring their wireless devices to receive the webcasts they want? This doesn't sound very female friendly to me.

Maybe it'll be in their cell phone? We all know everyone wants a phone they can carry around not in their pocket or chic little purse, but in a pouch attached to their belt. That must be why nobody is buying those Razrs and Razr clones anymore. Sleek and thin just isn't in. It's gotta have a keyboard and be capable of web browsing that would justify a WiMax connection. Yup. I'm sure that's exactly what our cute, trendy, blonde receptionist here wants strapped to her waist when she's out in the club.

Maybe some savvy entrepreneur will just create an easy to use device that gives the user a choice of 100 or so channels and connects to a wireless digital signal for free. Of course, they'll have to fund all this free entertainment, so they'll have to run some ads.

Oh... Wait a minute... That sounds like HD Radio!

 

[vsa]

In the software industry, they call this stuff vaporware.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Hey vsa, wasn't it about this time last year you and Mark Ramsey were saying the iPhone would be the death of radio?  Funny.  We're somehow still keeping the lights on here, and I've yet to meet anyone using their iPhone to listen to streaming audio.

The death of traditional radio is gradual and relentless. The glory days are over. Radio's revenues have been flat to down since 2002. TSL and cume are shrinking. National figures show almost all formats trending older each year or flat.

The internet is practically everywhere.  It's in virtually every office and every home, and has been for years now.  So far internet radio has, by your own numbers, managed to attract an audience of just over 6 million listeners.  That's about half what satellite radio has, and unlike satellite radio most internet radio is free.  Impressive!

Oh yeah, throw out the 1.3 million online listeners Clear Channel has, since that's just webcasts of terrestrial stations.  Even more impressive! I suppose I'm supposed to believe the only reason internet radio isn't catching on is its lack of portability?  Satellite radio is portable.  Why aren't they just slaughtering those big, arrogant radio corporations with their annoying DJs, repetitive music and commercials?

Could it be that people just aren't interested?  Could it be that they're actually happy with free, over the air local radio?

Could it be that many of the same people that couldn't set the clock on their VCRs and get their PCs infected with spyware and viruses just don't need anything more high tech than radio to meet their aural entertainment needs?

Could it also be true that HD Radio will deliver them more content choices in the same convenient and comfortable format they've grown accustomed to?  This is why HD Radio will succeed.

The figures were partial and from a list of only the biggest webcasters. Total monthly reach for Internet radio is about 75 million Americans and growing rapidly. And there is no Internet Radio Alliance promoting the medium.

Just because someone can listen to a newfangled technology doesn't mean they will.  Let's assume the best for internet radio.  WiMax is a raging success and the internet is truly mobile.  It's everywhere, it's reliable and wireless internet audio devices are plentiful.

Those devices are going to have to be configured.  Ut oh...  Most of the people I know have no idea how to set up their e-mail in Outlook.  How much luck are they going to have configuring their wireless devices to receive the webcasts they want?  This doesn't sound very female friendly to me.

Maybe it'll be in their cell phone?  We all know everyone wants a phone they can carry around not in their pocket or chic little purse, but in a pouch attached to their belt.  That must be why nobody is buying those Razrs and Razr clones anymore.  Sleek and thin just isn't in.  It's gotta have a keyboard and be capable of web browsing that would justify a WiMax connection.  Yup.  I'm sure that's exactly what our cute, trendy, blonde receptionist here wants strapped to her waist when she's out in the club.

Maybe some savvy entrepreneur will just create an easy to use device that gives the user a choice of 100 or so channels and connects to a wireless digital signal for free.  Of course, they'll have to fund all this free entertainment, so they'll have to run some ads.

Oh...  Wait a minute...  That sounds like HD Radio!

Listening to Internet radio on a wireless device is as simple as using a browser to go to a website and clicking on a link. Of course, that's unless the terrestrial station that is streaming doesn't know how to set up a steaming friendly environment for portable devices.

Hey, don't listen to me. Ignore any and all warning signs. Radio is doing just fine. Have some more of that Kool-Aid.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Radioman100 said:

Considering that important fact, web listening to terrestrial stations is limited to people who for whatever reason want to listen to a station from out of market (radio geeks, people yearning for a taste of their hometown, etc.) or people who for whatever reason can't have a $10 radio wherever they are but for whatever reason have a PC.

What?
Where did you hear that?

1- Many people already have a PC and internet connection where they work, or reside and where over the air AM/FM radio reception (especially HD radio) may be problematic.
2- Most computer speakers and internet radio reception are better then those from a $10 radio.
3- There are thousands if not tens of thousands of stations (between the stations? ) to choose from, and even more podcasts available on demand. (Try that with your $10 radio).

Only 6 million internet radio listeners?
Nope. Try 75 million (not counting podcasts) and growing much faster then analog radio and HD.

You say you are a broadcast IT/automation professional but your computer speakers and amp are worse then $10 radio reception?

You really should get yourself a decent set of computer speakers. :

 

[Radioman100]

I love it... First you give the numbers from Arbitron which pegs the top 5 or 6 webcasters as having a collective audience of about 6 million, then you revise that figure upward to 75 million. Truly classic!

The best of the best, the biggest of the bigs only muster a few million listeners each and all the other varied webcasters pull in the other 69 million?

Sorry, I'm just not buying that.

Perhaps they have 69 million worldwide. I'd buy that. There are many places, like the old Soviet bloc where radio stations designed to appeal to younger demographics aren't as plentiful as they are here.

But here in the good ol' USA I'd say that 6 million figure is a lot more realistic. Six million internet vs. 270+ million terrestrial. Yeah, it must be time to jump off this sinking ship.

Anyone else remember the dot com bust? You go right ahead and invest your time, money or career in that newspaper driven local webcast. Let us all know how it works out for you.

 

[vsa]

I love it... First you give the numbers from Arbitron which pegs the top 5 or 6 webcasters as having a collective audience of about 6 million, then you revise that figure upward to 75 million. Truly classic!

The best of the best, the biggest of the bigs only muster a few million listeners each and all the other varied webcasters pull in the other 69 million?

Sorry, I'm just not buying that.

Perhaps they have 69 million worldwide. I'd buy that. There are many places, like the old Soviet bloc where radio stations designed to appeal to younger demographics aren't as plentiful as they are here.

But here in the good ol' USA I'd say that 6 million figure is a lot more realistic. Six million internet vs. 270+ million terrestrial. Yeah, it must be time to jump off this sinking ship.

Anyone else remember the dot com bust? You go right ahead and invest your time, money or career in that newspaper driven local webcast. Let us all know how it works out for you.

Arbitron only publishes Internet Radio listening figures for client stations. Webcast Metrics publishes listening figures of only their clients. Those who don't pay, don't get listed.

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/arts/music/23assa.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

"...About 55 million Americans listen to Internet radio every week (compared with the 279 million who listen to terrestrial radio), a jump of 26 percent in the past year, according to Bridge Ratings, a survey firm in Glendale, Calif...."

Last spring, Bridge Ratings estimated a monthly cume of 72 million. At the current rate of growth, that would put the monthly cume at about 80 million listeners to Internet Radio. Before you try to slam Dave Van Dyke at Bridge Ratings, let me say that he is a long-time radio pro who, prior to going into business for himself, managed KCBS-FM in Los Angeles. I know him. He has no axe to grind.

 

[Radioman100]

Arbitron only publishes Internet Radio listening figures for client stations. Webcast Metrics publishes listening figures of only their clients. Those who don't pay, don't get listed.

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/arts/music/23assa.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

"...About 55 million Americans listen to Internet radio every week (compared with the 279 million who listen to terrestrial radio), a jump of 26 percent in the past year, according to Bridge Ratings, a survey firm in Glendale, Calif...."

Last spring, Bridge Ratings estimated a monthly cume of 72 million. At the current rate of growth, that would put the monthly cume at about 80 million listeners to Internet Radio. Before you try to slam Dave Van dyke at Bridge Ratings, let me say that he is a long-time radio pro who, prior to going into business for himself, managed KCBS-FM in Los Angeles. I know him. He has no axe to grind.

I wouldn't accuse them of grinding axes. I'd accuse them of pulling numbers out of their posteriors though. You could have saved us a lot of time if you had just mentioned Bridge Ratings as your source in the first place. Even Mark Ramsey doesn't believe their data.

 

[vsa]

Arbitron only publishes Internet Radio listening figures for client stations. Webcast Metrics publishes listening figures of only their clients. Those who don't pay, don't get listed.

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/arts/music/23assa.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

"...About 55 million Americans listen to Internet radio every week (compared with the 279 million who listen to terrestrial radio), a jump of 26 percent in the past year, according to Bridge Ratings, a survey firm in Glendale, Calif...."

Last spring, Bridge Ratings estimated a monthly cume of 72 million. At the current rate of growth, that would put the monthly cume at about 80 million listeners to Internet Radio. Before you try to slam Dave Van dyke at Bridge Ratings, let me say that he is a long-time radio pro who, prior to going into business for himself, managed KCBS-FM in Los Angeles. I know him. He has no axe to grind.

I wouldn't accuse them of grinding axes. I'd accuse them of pulling numbers out of their posteriors though. You could have saved us a lot of time if you had just mentioned Bridge Ratings as your source in the first place. Even Mark Ramsey doesn't believe their data.

You just can't seem to get ANYTHING right. Mark Ramsey has trouble believing the accuracy of anyone's projections that go out beyond 5 years, not any current or near term data. I tend to agree with him.

Almost 2 years ago, "The Wall Street Journal" quoted these Arbitron figures:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...831-hxJvqX1CdHgnEYLpqxJjyPoiL8A_20070321.html

"...An estimated 30 million Americans listen to Internet radio stations each week, up from 20 million a year ago, according to a January survey by Arbitron Inc. and Edison Media Research..."

This year's numbers from Bridge Ratings are not out of line with Arbitron's numbers. More importantly, Arbitron's January, 2006 numbers prove you wrong yet again.

 

[Radioman100]

You just can't seem to get ANYTHING right. Mark Ramsey has trouble believing the accuracy of anyone's projections that go out beyond 5 years, not any current or near term data. I tend to agree with him.

Almost 2 years ago, "The Wall Street Journal" quoted these Arbitron figures:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...831-hxJvqX1CdHgnEYLpqxJjyPoiL8A_20070321.html

"...An estimated 30 million Americans listen to Internet radio stations each week, up from 20 million a year ago, according to a January survey by Arbitron Inc. and Edison Media Research..."

This year's numbers from Bridge Ratings are not out of line with Arbitron's numbers. More importantly, Arbitron's January, 2006 numbers prove you wrong yet again.

Mark Ramsey has questioned Bridge Ratings methodology on more than one occasion, and has questioned why industry trades publish their data so widely without questioning their methodology. I don't want to put words in the guy's mouth, so I recommend going to his site and searching for "Bridge Ratings" for yourself. You'll see he criticizes them and their methods as much or more than he praises them. Generally the only time Mark seems to agree with Bridge is when they're pushing one of his own themes, like his anti-HD rhetoric or that radio needs to live in constant fear of every technological innovation that comes along. He gladly turns a blind eye to the improbability of their long-term prognostications then, but otherwise he's constantly encouraging people to "expect more" from their sources. http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/if_its_true_in_.html

Personally, I'm skeptical of all of these estimates, even Arbitron's. Even if their estimates were close to correct, they give no indication of how much online listening is to webcasts of terrestrial stations. What we do know is that only one radio company makes their webcasts quantifiable by Arbitron (Clear Channel) and they're a significant force in webcasting, providing the exact same material that's on their terrestrial signals. As I pointed out before, Clear Channel is a big company, but they don't own everything radio. Hundreds of terrestrial stations webcast. It's impossible to predict how much of that online listening is to terrestrial stations.

Beyond everything though, the numbers you provide just don't jive. The biggest players in webcasting have an audience of 6 million yet the total listening in the USA is 70 million? What methodology are they using to determine all this supposed listenership? How do they determine where the listening is taking place? How do they know if the listening is even in the USA?

 

[vsa]

You just can't seem to get ANYTHING right. Mark Ramsey has trouble believing the accuracy of anyone's projections that go out beyond 5 years, not any current or near term data. I tend to agree with him.

Almost 2 years ago, "The Wall Street Journal" quoted these Arbitron figures:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...831-hxJvqX1CdHgnEYLpqxJjyPoiL8A_20070321.html

"...An estimated 30 million Americans listen to Internet radio stations each week, up from 20 million a year ago, according to a January survey by Arbitron Inc. and Edison Media Research..."

This year's numbers from Bridge Ratings are not out of line with Arbitron's numbers. More importantly, Arbitron's January, 2006 numbers prove you wrong yet again.

...Personally, I'm skeptical of all of these estimates, even Arbitron's...

If you're skeptical of everyone's data, including Arbitron's, then there's no convincing you. I guess you win.