How to kill an industry

[SirRoxalot]

One thing you need to remember is that the only wireless part of cellular is the last mile. Everything else connects to either a wired or fiber network. If you increase the number of cellular users and the bandwidth they require, you need to reduce the size of cells so you can repeat frequencies more often. That means more cell towers, and more infrastructure to allow those cell towers to communicate with the rest of the network. None of that is cheap, but it's going to become necessary if the telcos are going to offer decent 4G support, and that means YOU'RE going to pay for it one way or another.

With the problems of handoffs, multipath, and other technical glitches, OTA broadcasting actually works very well, and may look like a bargain. Added data streams through RDS and coordination with other services could bring in NTR dollars as well. The limitation is that it's one way. The advantage is that it's dirt simple to operate. Traditional radio may be around a lot longer than some people think if the programming is worth listening to.

 

[TheBigA]

One thing you need to remember is that the only wireless part of cellular is the last mile. Everything else connects to either a wired or
With the problems of handoffs, multipath, and other technical glitches, OTA broadcasting actually works very well, and may look like a bargain.

You're arguing with the wrong people. No one in radio is anxious to leave the frequencies they spent millions to buy. They'd love them to be better protected by the FCC, and they're not happy about government supported broadband. But it's what the public wants, and what the government is dedicated to provide. So get used to it.

 

[SaltyDog]

The back and forth on the limitations of wireless and the advantages of OTA is interesting.

I still listen to OTA radio but I find my wireless Internet radio increasing and I ask myself why. I guess it has to do with control. There is something attractive about shedding the geographical limitations of only being able to listen to my local radio stations. A lot of my wireless listening is in fact to programming originating with terrestrial radio companies in a distant city. I know that's heresy to those that believe that local is inherently superior to out-of-market origination. I notice, though, that a lot of local shows can't seem to find enough interesting local content to fill a show. So they end up talking about national issues and Hollywood gossip. All things being equal, I might prefer local but rarely are all things equal.

 

[SirRoxalot]

We really need to establish that there's a difference between wireless and cellular. I'm wireless in my house, but only because I've got a wireless router connected to a high speed Internet connection. It covers my house pretty well, although I'm noticing that my tablet doesn't pick up the signal as well as my laptop in some areas of the house.

Cellular is a very different animal. Try listening to a stream on cellular connection, and it's a lot more sensitive to movement, even within the house. 3G is different from the front of the house to the back. 4G is iffy, at best, even though I'm supposed to be in the middle of a prime area on the coverage map.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We really need to establish that there's a difference between wireless and cellular.

You have opened up "a can of semantic worms".

Out here among the civilians, we adopt whatever word seems to work for us. In the industry they adopted the term WIRELESS years ago back when the original carriers were CELLULAR (800 mhz) and when the new upstarts came along with the 1,600 mhz "PCS" systems, they were touchy about the terminology. I worked for a company that made base station antennas and there was a period of time when we had to be "politically correct" lest you upset a customer. Then as companies grew, merged and did joint-ventures, they decided they were "The WIRELESS Industry". I believe the official name of one company is VERIZON WIRELESS. On my AT&T bill they use the term ATT WIRELESS to break out my "mobile" phone. (Mobile was an acceptable word in the industry when you didn't want to irritate your customers.)

Phone sets around the house that connect to your "land line" are not called wireless phones. They are CORDED and CORDLESS.

You and your neighbors can call them anything you want to. But if you are going to have conversation in forms like this where people with connection to the various industries are part of the conversation, I think the "safe ground" is to use WIRELESS only to refer to mobile phones which operate in the CELLULAR or the PCS frequency bands.

My AT&T Service includes router device that drenches my little cottage with WI-FI so that I can use devices to pick up streaming or attach additional computers or printers to my connection. No where does the phone company monthly bill call the Internet Wi-Fi service "WIRELESS".

 

[KeithE4]

We really need to establish that there's a difference between wireless and cellular. I'm wireless in my house, but only because I've got a wireless router connected to a high speed Internet connection.

You mean "WiFi" and cellular. Both are wireless, at least between your phone/tablet/laptop/whatever and the thingy (router or cell-site) it's talking directly to. But they are different transmission systems and operate on different frequencies.

It covers my house pretty well, although I'm noticing that my tablet doesn't pick up the signal as well as my laptop in some areas of the house.

I have WiFi problems with my 2-year-old Motorola Droid. It has a very poor WiFi section. I sometimes lose the signal in the bedroom, 20 feet from my router, even though my Roku box and netbook pick it up perfectly in the same room. That's a phone problem.

Cellular is a very different animal. Try listening to a stream on cellular connection, and it's a lot more sensitive to movement, even within the house. 3G is different from the front of the house to the back. 4G is iffy, at best, even though I'm supposed to be in the middle of a prime area on the coverage map.

A cell site only has a useful range of a few miles (around 5?) and runs only moderate power. Depending on how close your nearest cell site is, it may indeed show changes in signal strength inside your house. Depends on construction, especially if your house is not 100% made of wood (Stucco? Aluminum siding? Cement block?), reflections from metal objects, including your kitchen appliances, metal doors, etc.

It also depends on what frequency band your provider uses. Higher frequencies will exhibit more path loss than lower ones. We're talking UHF and lower-microwave frequencies here, with built-in antennas on phones that are not exactly efficient, especially with varying levels of hand capacitance involved (just ask Apple).

 

[Tom Wells]

Individualized bandwidth in wireless is essentially piggish and increases entropy, broadcast is essentially
service to others and results in a higher ordering of values and worth for all.

Horses are safer than cars too.

You can continue to program on a platform with diminishing audiences, or you can begin converting your own internal systems to where the people are going. It's not about us. It's about THEM. And THEY don't care about physics.

Horses were smarrter than cars, and with a good horse, out in the country you could let the horse take you home, it KNEW the way.
You could fall ASLEEP and the hose would take you home.

It's a good thing cars were invented because now people can disrespect and mistreat an inanimate thing instead of a horse.

People truly don't care about physics.
The present popularity of enormous, tall, unstable SUVs that crash with annoying regularity is evidence of that.
So is the epidemic of obesity.

People are free to do whatever they want.

As we value money above all, the choices offered to us in the marketplace (concepts, products, services) are are not based actual values,
but perceived value, marketable value, and above all, profitablility.


Even if it kills us, we'll keep doing what marketing people want, because "it's good for business".

The more disrespect I see for the laws of physics, the less urgency I feel for wanting to fix "electrical" problems for
a society that spends so much time refusing to understand the nature of technology or anything requiring study.

Willful ignorance is seldom a useful strategy and reality seems to select such people for "early removal form the game".

When this house of technological cards crashes, I'll be suffering just like anyone else,
but at least I can say now that I told you so. Anybody got a flint?

 

[SaltyDog]

We really need to establish that there's a difference between wireless and cellular. I'm wireless in my house, but only because I've got a wireless router connected to a high speed Internet connection. It covers my house pretty well, although I'm noticing that my tablet doesn't pick up the signal as well as my laptop in some areas of the house.

Cellular is a very different animal. Try listening to a stream on cellular connection, and it's a lot more sensitive to movement, even within the house. 3G is different from the front of the house to the back. 4G is iffy, at best, even though I'm supposed to be in the middle of a prime area on the coverage map.

Good point. When I referred to wireless, I was mainly thinking of cellular, although I listen on both cellular and home wifi. There are occasional issues with connectivity while moving, but rarely. I made an 800 mile drive listening to radio on my cell phone plugged into my car audio system the whole way. I had surprisingly few dropouts.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Good point. When I referred to wireless, I was mainly thinking of cellular, although I listen on both cellular and home wifi. There are occasional issues with connectivity while moving, but rarely. I made an 800 mile drive listening to radio on my cell phone plugged into my car audio system the whole way. I had surprisingly few dropouts.

Sounds to me like satellite radio is what's really in trouble.

 

[SaltyDog]

Sounds to me like satellite radio is what's really in trouble.

I've never been a fan of satellite radio, either as a service to subscribe to or as a stock to own. As a listener, the essence of radio is content no matter how it gets delivered to me. That's why the cuts by the big companies render them less valuable to me by the day. The disadvantages of Internet radio should diminish or even vanish over time (technical and cost) and the advantages will remain: Interactivity and listener control. I don't see how terrestrial transmitters or satellite will ever become anymore than they are now, a one way street which pushes programming at me and I can either listen or not, but I can't change. Customization is huge for me. Once I got used to being able to skip songs on Pandora, listening to music on a terrestrial radio station became frustrating.

 

[TheBigA]

I've never been a fan of satellite radio, either as a service to subscribe to or as a stock to own.

Oh man, let me tell you. I lost a lot of money on satellite. I bought Sirius just before Mel got in. The stock soared. I should have sold that day. I didn't. Big mistake. The merger was supposed to resuscitate it, and it just basically stayed status quo. Yes they keep putting out press releases about subscription growth, but my friends tell me there's a lot of hanky panky in those numbers. The bloom is off the rose. You won't see the excitement level around for satellite again as you did 8 years ago. I believe they can operate with the cash flow they have now, but they'll be needed another partner soon if they want to grow. Mel is the king of mergers, so the right man is there to get it done. And even with another merger, the stock won't be worth as much as it was the day Mel became CEO.

Getting back to the premise of this thread, I don't believe radio is dead. I don't believe radio companies are killing radio. I think radio is evolving before our eyes. The old type of radio we knew is dying, so in that way, I understand how some people feel it's toast. But it's a natural evolution, very similar to what happened to radio after the networks died at the end of the 1940s. What will emerge will be as different from the past as DJs were from Fibber McGee & Molly.

 

[KeithE4]

But it's a natural evolution, very similar to what happened to radio after the networks died at the end of the 1940s. What will emerge will be as different from the past as DJs were from Fibber McGee & Molly.

Disk jockeys will be in 2015 what radio actors were in 1975 - a very small niche profession. After all, the CBS Radio Mystery Theater employed radio actors in the '70s, but they were a very small number compared to 20-40 years earlier. The same thing will go for DJs. The best ones will still be around, but most will have to evolve into talk-show hosts (since talking is what the great ones do best), go into TV, or find another line of work.

 

[SaltyDog]

Getting back to the premise of this thread, I don't believe radio is dead. I don't believe radio companies are killing radio. I think radio is evolving before our eyes. The old type of radio we knew is dying, so in that way, I understand how some people feel it's toast. But it's a natural evolution, very similar to what happened to radio after the networks died at the end of the 1940s.

I am not someone who thinks that without deregulation, radio would be just like it was in the 80's. The changes are driven by technology. But I do think all the debt constricts them from investing in the product when it is most needed. I don't think radio is dead because radio is content, but transmitters as we know them will diminish in importance and ultimately probably die. It will take a long time, but I think that's where it's headed.

 

[TheBigA]

But I do think all the debt constricts them from investing in the product when it is most needed.

It depends on how the debt os organized. It certainly was a problem for Sirius right after the merger. That place was walking a very scary tightrope, and Mel bit the bullet and made a deal with his devil. He's done it before. That saved the company from complete collapse.

Cumulus and Clear Channel obviously have a lot of debt, but they both seem to be handling it fairly well. It's not constraining either of them from making investments in product. Yes they're both enaged in their annual holiday RIFs, but they're as much about restructuring their programming as they are about cutting costs.

 

[Silkie]

Let's make this simple. If radio doesn't reflect the community, there won't be any need for radio. If all you're going to do is repeat syndicated or out-of-town programming, why should people listen OTA? And why should local advertisers pay for airtime.

There was a time when local radio helped to create a sense of community. It still does in some places, and at some stations. When that's lost, turn out the lights. The delivery system is secondary to the product, but nobody has invented anything simpler or more convenient than OTA radio.

SirRoxalot, radio reflects the community as far as lipservice goes. Whether because people on the air think that nobody is paying attention, (or because if anyone is paying attention they won't have a clue anyway, and if they do, so what), you have people who take no pride in their work

There is a bit of a situation in areas in which young jocks or jockettes claim that their consultants are shacked up with them, teaching them how to be really good, taking it out in trade. Such behaviour does not create a sense of community; rather, it just puts a profession into a very bad light -again, because the people don't much care. I frankly am not interested in knowing that some young jockette is letting some older man from another part of the country do her in exchange for dirt and/or teaching her how to be a disc jockey... and of course eventually taking them in for good.

It might not kill an industry, but when all parties are flaunting it in the faces of their victims, the public, it sure kills the ratings for the station, and the reputation of one who always had a good name prior. That is when you really do have nobody listening, or caring to hear it...from any of them. These are just people who have no conscience and who do not care about being the best they can be. The impression that settles in is the industry of ill repute in every sense of the term. They figure nobody is paying attention anyway, not even when the consultant is just putting it all together for those whom they are allegedly doing.

...and, of course, there is that element of other illicit things going on. It is not the killing of an industry, just the killing of one small business at a time.

 

[fang39]

Getting back to the premise of this thread, I don't believe radio is dead. I don't believe radio companies are killing radio. I think radio is evolving before our eyes. The old type of radio we knew is dying, so in that way, I understand how some people feel it's toast. But it's a natural evolution, very similar to what happened to radio after the networks died at the end of the 1940s.

I am not someone who thinks that without deregulation, radio would be just like it was in the 80's. The changes are driven by technology. But I do think all the debt constricts them from investing in the product when it is most needed. I don't think radio is dead because radio is content, but transmitters as we know them will diminish in importance and ultimately probably die. It will take a long time, but I think that's where it's headed.

While I agree that technology would have led to the eventual downsizing of positions within the industry, I believe that deregulation has caused an accelerated loss of jobs in the industry. Prior to the Communications Act of 1996, Broadcast Companies were limited to the number of stations they controlled in a market. That means, Clear Channel would have owned one AM and one FM in the New York City market, instead of the 9 they currently hold. That means there could be as many as 7 additional fully staffed stations, employing their own sales, air and production teams. Use the same formula across the country and you can see how many jobs have been eliminated soley due to cross ownership by the mega-companies. Thousands.

And more than jobs, the biggest loss is the quality of broadcast radio. It has gotten away from its stated purpose, which was to serve the public good. This was evidenced by the recent pre-Halloween snowstorm in Connecticut, where only one local station was able to break format in order to provide much needed news and information relating to the storm. The rest were either knocked off the air or running pre-recorded programming, since the storm took place on a Saturday afternoon/evening, when no one is in the building anymore.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Silk, I think you're missing the original point made by Steve Jobs and Peggy Noonan, which has to do with taking the business away from the people who create the product, and reducing innovation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/19/peggy-noonan-on-steve-jobs-and-why-big-companies-die/

I don't what you're talking about happening where I work. Maybe it's more common in a major market, but I didn't see much of it there, either, during the "golden years" for consultants. BTW, those years are coming to an end as the major groups bring that function in-house. There have always been those who trade on their physical charms to get a door open, but they rarely last if they don't have actual talent required to do the job.

 

[Tom Wells]

It was once quite clear to ALL the whole "point" of radio was Service to Others, in the greatest sense.

See how far we've come.

And who and what we're actually serving.

 

[TheBigA]

It was once quite clear to ALL the whole "point" of radio was Service to Others, in the greatest sense.

That wasn't Marconi's intent. Nor was it Westinghouse's. Nor was it Sarnoff's. Their goal was making money. Always has been. So much so that a former Chairman of the FCC proposed a non-commercial, government-funded system of broadcasting. That happened 45 years ago.

 

[Silkie]

SirRoxalot, I concur with your analysis. Again, it is a rare thing, but it does happen, and I have in fact seen that they last only a very short while when they do not have the talent. It usually occurs when you have smaller companies that are not well run. The better people move along, leaving the junk behind. Some use a "show" for illicit purposes, and it is interesting to see people, who would not normally even know the market exists, showing up in those small towns at odd times, especially when they never did before. It becomes not so much about radio, as its uses. That is where the business gets killed, and only when push comes to shove are the bad apples eventually weeded out for the survival of the company. Oddly enough, the "jocks" know exactly who has arrived in town, and just how to tell them not to stop, not to call, the heat is on...usually while trying very hard to pretend they are not in possession of stolen material from a station that was taken off the air about fifteen years ago for exactly the same thing.