-
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
How Expensive is it for a Radio station to stream their signal online?
- Thread starter Skynet74
- Start date
D
donnikhan
Guest
The actual technology is not very expensive, if you wanted to set up a nice one, today, it would take about 5 hours and less than 1000 bucks.
The problem is that FCC has some weird rule that doesn't let the station make money using their stream, they can't play commercials. So it gets really expensive because you have to outsource it to some shmucky company
The problem is that FCC has some weird rule that doesn't let the station make money using their stream, they can't play commercials. So it gets really expensive because you have to outsource it to some shmucky company
Is it really the FCC's rule that the company can't make money off a stream? Check on that. It doesn't sound right. I believe Radio stations can't air many commercials because broadcasting the commercials over the internet isn't covered under contract.
Voiceover actors were feeling jipped that they were only being compensated for their voice being used for Radio airplay and not being compensated when their voice was used on the internet stream. That is how I beleive all this began.
Then for about two years it seemed that almost every radio station shut their internet feed down until a solution was developed. That solution now replaces many of the commercials with either silence on the internet stream or with different commercials alltogether.
Voiceover actors were feeling jipped that they were only being compensated for their voice being used for Radio airplay and not being compensated when their voice was used on the internet stream. That is how I beleive all this began.
Then for about two years it seemed that almost every radio station shut their internet feed down until a solution was developed. That solution now replaces many of the commercials with either silence on the internet stream or with different commercials alltogether.
P
PaulBWalkerJr
Guest
Hey donnikhan, silly..
The FCC has never made a rule about stations making money from commercials run on the webstream. That's probably the stupidest thing I've heard all week.
It hasta do with the fact the stations don't wanna give away 'free airtime". You see, the clients paid for a commercial that X Amount of listeners would hear on 108.6FM(just an EXAMPLE!!) for their drivetime show .. are NOT paying for airtime on the webstream, something the station doesn't want to give away for free.
If you have at least a P2 Computer, along with a radio or other source bringing the feed of your station, you can be up in less then 5 hrs for less then $1000.
It's the issue of blocking out those commercials, either via silencing the audio or replacing it with something else.
The FCC has never made a rule about stations making money from commercials run on the webstream. That's probably the stupidest thing I've heard all week.
It hasta do with the fact the stations don't wanna give away 'free airtime". You see, the clients paid for a commercial that X Amount of listeners would hear on 108.6FM(just an EXAMPLE!!) for their drivetime show .. are NOT paying for airtime on the webstream, something the station doesn't want to give away for free.
If you have at least a P2 Computer, along with a radio or other source bringing the feed of your station, you can be up in less then 5 hrs for less then $1000.
It's the issue of blocking out those commercials, either via silencing the audio or replacing it with something else.
D
donnikhan
Guest
obviously, but the software stays at the company that is providing the stream or at the corporate IT centers of the big guys i'm sure
R
radiodizzy
Guest
My Understanding:
Initially, music stations pulled their streams because ASCAP, BMI & SESAC wanted the stream to be recognized as a separate means of transmission, and therefore wanted separate royalties to be paid. So every time "I Wanna Rock & Roll All Night" aired and went out over the stream, said station was to pay 2x the royalties. The law/rule as defined now actually recognizes the fees paid as including the stream:
"In the on-line radio world, the fees due to the composers of music through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC continue to be paid, in a manner much like the fees have been paid in the terrestrial radio world. For an internet-only station, the fees involve a flat fee plus a percentage of revenue once revenues have reached a certain level. For internet radio stations that simulcast the signal of an over-the-air station on a nonsubscriptionbasis, fees are basically included in the new ASCAP and BMI broadcast licenses."
Therefore, stations now that are holding commercials back from their stream, are likely gearing up, or in the process of, charging and/or finding ways to charge for the "air time" and exposure over the net.
Initially, music stations pulled their streams because ASCAP, BMI & SESAC wanted the stream to be recognized as a separate means of transmission, and therefore wanted separate royalties to be paid. So every time "I Wanna Rock & Roll All Night" aired and went out over the stream, said station was to pay 2x the royalties. The law/rule as defined now actually recognizes the fees paid as including the stream:
"In the on-line radio world, the fees due to the composers of music through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC continue to be paid, in a manner much like the fees have been paid in the terrestrial radio world. For an internet-only station, the fees involve a flat fee plus a percentage of revenue once revenues have reached a certain level. For internet radio stations that simulcast the signal of an over-the-air station on a nonsubscriptionbasis, fees are basically included in the new ASCAP and BMI broadcast licenses."
Therefore, stations now that are holding commercials back from their stream, are likely gearing up, or in the process of, charging and/or finding ways to charge for the "air time" and exposure over the net.
Well, I work for a station that used to be just online, but was recently bought by a public radio station here in Philadelphia (www.YRockOnXPN.org).
We stream online 24/7 but are also on WXPN FM 3 nights a week (and simulcasted online during these nights).
It's a unique situation - a public station teaming up with an online station - but it seems to be working. When we stream online, we have to follow a fairly strict group of RIAA rules that have to do with everything from showing the name and artist of every song we play online to not playing the same song/artist within a certain period.
However, we are able to do the same sort of underwriting online that follow public radio guidelines. And, before we became a part of WXPN, we were able to "stream" even more promotional spots for our sponsors. These sponsors, though, were usually national and not local since our listenership comes from all over. And when I listen to some FM stations out in California that have an online stream, I notice that they usually just play national ads online in place of their local ones. Perhaps they get a seperate group of national advertisers to cover the spots on the stream as some other posters were alluding to.
As far as royalties, I believe we follow the new ruling that does not double the fees.
We stream online 24/7 but are also on WXPN FM 3 nights a week (and simulcasted online during these nights).
It's a unique situation - a public station teaming up with an online station - but it seems to be working. When we stream online, we have to follow a fairly strict group of RIAA rules that have to do with everything from showing the name and artist of every song we play online to not playing the same song/artist within a certain period.
However, we are able to do the same sort of underwriting online that follow public radio guidelines. And, before we became a part of WXPN, we were able to "stream" even more promotional spots for our sponsors. These sponsors, though, were usually national and not local since our listenership comes from all over. And when I listen to some FM stations out in California that have an online stream, I notice that they usually just play national ads online in place of their local ones. Perhaps they get a seperate group of national advertisers to cover the spots on the stream as some other posters were alluding to.
As far as royalties, I believe we follow the new ruling that does not double the fees.
I'm not to sure actually about the exact price of streaming, but at the station I'm on at Rhode Island College (90.7 WXIN.. www.ricradio.org) we stream our shows, and we actually have two stations right next eachother on campus and this upcoming semester we plan on having a WXIN 1 and 2. WXIN 1 will be broadcasted on the radio on air and online and WXIN 2 will just be broadcasted online. So, in all, we'll be having two streams going on at different times....I just thought that would be interesting to mention under this thread. I dont think it would cost a lot if we're able to do that. The program or service we use I think is live365.com.
D
donnikhan
Guest
I just wanted to say for the record that if the chooch's at RIU worked as hard as the kids at XIN did then we'd have the best college stations in the country all in one state.
- Status