Hyundai Latest To Offer Easy Access To Internet Radio

[Jay Peninger]

I'm not sure where you come up with $15 a month Bong. Getting broadband to the car is the same as owning another smartphone with a data package. My Android phone through Verizon with 900 minutes, text and data plan costs almost $130 a month, including all the taxes applied. My IPhone through AT&T is 85 a month and that price will be going up when my existing contract expries in March.

Satellite radio costs about $13 a month and we know how well that's caught on.

Bottom line? If given less choice and free, or thousands of choices at $100 a month, average consumers (which again are the majority), prefer free.

Cellular 3g or 4g is not the same as a public Wi-Fi network... Seattle already offers Wi-Fi on Metro Buses and cities all over are building out public wireless in their communities because it is what people want and communities that offer it are going to attract the people who want it.... How many people do you think would be willing to pay a flat rate $10 - $20 fee to have access to a citywide wireless network? I would do it in a heartbeat....

Bill is right when he says that Internet Radio offers better end user interaction that do HD or Satellite and when people have or feel they have control over what they are hearing that is where they will gravitate... And nobody is predicting the end of terrestrial radio simply that stations should be embracing the technology and building a strategy that will keep them viable when that 70+ million P12+ folks have a world wide spectrum of options at their finger tips....

 

[SRP]

But I foresee over-construction and over-supply at some point, which will bring bandwidth cost down.

And I foresee all that so-called "over-supply" being used up by more and more people getting smartphones. Verizon's network is about to get hammered by the iPhone converts from AT&T and it seems every month there's a new Droid model or Windows Phone. And every one of those things eats bandwidth like Pac-Man eats energy pills.

$15 a month for 200Mb is about as low as it's gonna get. There's no incentive to cut the prices.

How many people do you think would be willing to pay a flat rate $10 - $20 fee to have access to a citywide wireless network? I would do it in a heartbeat....

You may be willing to do it, but the average Joe Sixpack won't. They've already got bills for cellphones, cable/dish, Netflix, etc.

Besides, who's going to pay for the infrastructure for that "city-wide wireless network"? The taxpayers? Think back to last November and the message that was sent about "no more taxes".

$10-$20/month ain't gonna build that network.

 

[TVradioguru]

How many people do you think would be willing to pay a flat rate $10 - $20 fee to have access to a citywide wireless network? I would do it in a heartbeat....

Again I'm not sure where this under $20 price point comes into the discussion. About three years ago The City of Chicago introduced a free city-wide WiFi system that was recently shut down because of cost in a tough economy. A similar situation in Houston.

And the government trying to hijack TV spectrum for wireless Internet? It's a red herring, not about free or low cost wireless, but freeing up spectrum for auction to wireless telecoms like Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. Assuming they won the various auctions, do you really think any of these companies would give you free wireless after spending billions to the governement for it? No. It will be an expansion to their existing stable of frequencies for voice or data to which you will be charged and taxed accordingly. Just as with broadcasting; delivery of data to consumers is a business. Nobody is going to give it away after they spend a lot of money for it. There has to be a return on investment and profit potential baked in there somewhere.

As is today; if you want streaming in your car, be prepared to either link it to your existing smart phone at $130 a month, or have a separate account which, just like your smart phone, will cost $90 to $100 a month.

 

[SRP]

As is today; if you want streaming in your car, be prepared to either link it to your existing smart phone at $130 a month, or have a separate account which, just like your smart phone, will cost $90 to $100 a month.

Actually, you CAN get standalone broadband service for as little as $25 a month. Virgin Mobile, Clear and others currently have "all you can eat" plans at that price point. So the under $20 prediction isn't that unrealistic.

But even at $20 it's still going to be an expense the "average Joe" won't be willing to pay.

 

[Jay Peninger]

How many people do you think would be willing to pay a flat rate $10 - $20 fee to have access to a citywide wireless network? I would do it in a heartbeat....

Again I'm not sure where this under $20 price point comes into the discussion. About three years ago The City of Chicago introduced a free city-wide WiFi system that was recently shut down because of cost in a tough economy. A similar situation in Houston.

And the government trying to hijack TV spectrum for wireless Internet? It's a red herring, not about free or low cost wireless, but freeing up spectrum for auction to wireless telecoms like Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. Assuming they won the various auctions, do you really think any of these companies would give you free wireless after spending billions to the governement for it? No. It will be an expansion to their existing stable of frequencies for voice or data to which you will be charged and taxed accordingly. Just as with broadcasting; delivery of data to consumers is a business. Nobody is going to give it away after they spend a lot of money for it. There has to be a return on investment and profit potential baked in there somewhere.

As is today; if you want streaming in your car, be prepared to either link it to your existing smart phone at $130 a month, or have a separate account which, just like your smart phone, will cost $90 to $100 a month.

Yes Chicago scrapped the blanket Wi-Fi in part because of budget concerns, but mostly because of contractual issues with their private partners and also because technology has moved past Wi-Fi as an effective method for blanket coverage.

Most cities and large urban areas who are installing blanket coverage are doing so via WiMax which can cover quite a large urban area with a fraction of the number of hotspots needed for Wi-Fi, and they are funding these base units in partnership with the cities business partners enabling them to offer blanket coverage to everyone either for free or at a very minimal monthly fee....

Again Seattle is one of the largest cities in the nation to be on board with blanket WiMax service and several other suburban communities have also begun developing plans for blanket service.

And lets be real about this... Even if the city didn't offer free access to WiMax there are commercial options already in place in the market in the form of Clear & Speakeasy whom you can get for far less than $90+ per month....

I use Clear personally and I have the USB adapter for my laptop the ClearSpot modem/hotspot and if I take my Modem/Hotspot with me and I can connect all my mobile devices wherever I may be... And all that for $54 which is still cheaper than Cable broadband and I am completely mobile....

And when you say the average Joe won't be on board with having to pay for access I have to ask who do you consider the average Joe? Because the 12 - 34 demo is clearly wired in and getting more wired in every year as that group gets older and larger... People are already paying for broadband at home why wouldn't you expect those people to adopt plans that allow them to take their service with them wherever they go?

Internet radio may never enjoy the penetration that terrestrial radio has, but it certainly will become a much larger factor in the coming years and it would be foolish to think otherwise given the direction the technology is heading.

 

[kj-srs]

I think there is some confusion on the technology. I would agree that if people had to pay for a second data plan, very few would be interested. But, with smartphones and bluetooth built into car radios, that isn't the case.

A simple bluetooth connection from your cell phone to your car's stereo is capable of streaming audio straight to the stereo using AD2P. And more and more cars are coming with bluetooth with AVRCP which allows you to remote control your smartphone with your stereo or buttons on your steering wheel. All of this uses your current cell phone and data plan, and does not tether to the phone for the internet connection.

This is where the usage of internet radio in cars will come from, especially because it's so easy to set up.

 

[SRP]

I think there is some confusion on the technology. I would agree that if people had to pay for a second data plan, very few would be interested. But, with smartphones and bluetooth built into car radios, that isn't the case.

A simple bluetooth connection from your cell phone to your car's stereo is capable of streaming audio straight to the stereo using AD2P. And more and more cars are coming with bluetooth with AVRCP which allows you to remote control your smartphone with your stereo or buttons on your steering wheel. All of this uses your current cell phone and data plan, and does not tether to the phone for the internet connection.

This is where the usage of internet radio in cars will come from, especially because it's so easy to set up.

There's no confusion, but thanks for trying to school us. Up here in tech-savvy Seattle we're all too familiar with A2DP, AVRCP and all the other stuff you mentioned.

If you had read the OP you'd have found this thread is about a manufacturer offering "PANDORA internet radio with seven-inch touch-screen display." That's why the discussion has centered on data plans for cars - because this is essentially in-car Internet, which is what needs to happen for Web radio to make even a small dent in terrestrial radio.