Internet "radio" vs. REAL radio

[Steven21]

IS there anyone who really believes that crappy amateur internet "radio" will ever replace the professional sound of terrestrial radio?

I know this is a common matra, but assuming this amateur junk is a real threat is like assuming you tube, etc. are going to replace the polished and crafted TV or film industry.

 

[Coldfinger]

Hard to believe that Internet radio will outperform over the air radio. Today, anyway. But if operators continue to dilute the quality of over the air broadcasting, I'd say all bets are off or at least being hedged at this time.

As to You Tube, there's evidence that it is, in fact, eating into broadcast TV's time spent viewing, especially with younger demos. And there are more and more people who prefer to watch their favorite shows "on line" than on TV. Dylan said it 40+ years ago, "The times they are a changin'." As to whether the change is for better or worse, well, only time will tell.

 

[Steven21]

there are more and more people who prefer to watch their favorite shows "on line" than on TV. Dylan said it 40+ years ago, "The times they are a changin'." As to whether the change is for better or worse, well, only time will tell.

Yes, they may be watching PROFESSIONALLY CREATED material shown on a different platform, not amateur stuff.

 

[Oldbones]

IS there anyone who really believes that crappy amateur internet "radio" will ever replace the professional sound of terrestrial radio?

I know this is a common matra, but assuming this amateur junk is a real threat is like assuming you tube, etc. are going to replace the polished and crafted TV or film industry.

It's another choice, but no I don't think it will ever replace broadcast radio. First of all, wireless internet streams are not really viable yet, way too many dead spots and not enough bandwidth. Get away from the large cities/suburbia/major highways and it's even worse. Besides, who wants to listen to music on a crappy-sounding cellphone once the novelty wears off?
As you said, a large percentage of online listening/viewing is to professionally produced streams, not some kid in a dorm on Shoutcast.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Since most people appear to listen to the radio going to and coming home from work, I don't think internet radio will overcome real radio.

Even those of us who manage to listen to the radio at work, via our computers, might say that while it's nice to hear our favoriate stations, there are times when internet radio just, to put it bluntly, craps out.

 

[Debaser]

Just remember, the nay-sayers once said that FM would never out-perform AM.
Do NOT underestimate the power of internet audio an the technology it takes to receive a good signal on decent equipment with better-than-adequate reproduction quality.

VOIP is making reception available for everyone in every urban area, and those numbers are ridiculously better for just one urban center than for all of rural America.

The next generation is currently watching movies and TV on their phones---why not listen to audio as well? Come to think of it, they already are! Who wants to listen to "radio" on their phones? Lots and lots of people---almost the entire "next" generation.

I'm not saying radio is dead. But it sure isn't at all well.

 

[umtrr-author]

I don't think "crappy internet radio" will replace "professional terrestrial radio", but it sure might replace "crappy terrestrial radio"...

 

[aaronread]

Currently a great deal of "internet radio" is emulating AM/FM radio, just on the web. This is a lot like how, at first, TV was basically "radio with pictures". It wasn't until people started realizing the strengths of the medium, and leveraging them, that TV really took off as a viable medium of its own.

Internet radio is lot like that...although one could make a strong case that podcasting is "internet radio" moving away from the "radio with pictures" mindset and instead is leveraging the strengths of the medium. Podcasting is limited now because of the legal issues, but in situations where those don't apply...like public radio...it's really taking off; many pubradio podcasts are insanely popular.

 

[Steven21]

Just remember, the nay-sayers once said that FM would never out-perform AM.
Do NOT underestimate the power of internet audio an the technology it takes to receive a good signal on decent equipment with better-than-adequate reproduction quality

With all the splintering on the internet, no one source will ever generate the revenue required to PRODUCE quality programming. QUALITY programming---specifically quality talent, costs money. That is one of the reasons I believe all this talk of the internet overcoming radio is extremely optimistic, absurdly so.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Internet radio relies on ubiquitous, inexpensive, high-speed wireless Internet access. If and when that becomes a reality, then content becomes the key to selecting a delivery system.

Will the day come when radio stations give up their towers and transmitters, and concentrate on content, delivered on a variety of platforms? Perhaps. One thing that they will have to focus on is providing content that puts a premium on a shared experience. They have to be more like the movies than a jukebox. You'll need content that you can't get easily elsewhere, which enhances the listening experience, and that you might want to share with others.

 

[Radknowski]

Without content, it's pretty hard to be content with what's on the radio. Damn! No emoticons. It's like having a good punch line with the gray Fidelipac in the Tapecaster and the clutch isn't set. Hate when that happens.

 

[average_listener]

As someone who has repeatedly eaten his words over technical predictions, I say don't categorically rule out internet "radio" outperforming many terrestrial stations. It won't compete with local news providers, certainly, but for delivery of music with much deeper playlists than a station is willing to provide it can really shine. And don't get hung up on high speed broadband. A modest 128Kbps stream can embarrass any AM station and stand up favorably with FM audio quality. Widely available wireless internet access is coming and will be here probably before we realize it.

It seems people are looking for content more than personality these days. Consider the explosion of personal playback devices. I think that things are looking up for net based providers and terrestrial is in for the fight of its life.

 

[listener-in]

Does “Internet Radio” refer to technology or distinctive content? Lots of AM & FM stations have spread their footprint by going on line. The most astute ones will boost their audience around their home base and will compete for audiences elsewhere, especially where their format is absent. Local radio does not come close to fully meeting my interests and I frequently listen to distant US, Canadian and UK stations on a WiFi radio – no need to boot up the computer. Stations ignore the net at their peril.

 

[umtrr-author]

With all the splintering on the internet, no one source will ever generate the revenue required to PRODUCE quality programming. QUALITY programming---specifically quality talent, costs money. That is one of the reasons I believe all this talk of the internet overcoming radio is extremely optimistic, absurdly so.

You are making the assumption that all quality people will want to make the quality bucks. There are some people in any number of fields who "create" for the pleasure of having created. Internet radio, just like self-publishing, blogging, websites, etc. enables the outlet for that product.

Of course, with the barrier to entry having been lowered, there is going to be, let us say, a lot of material that is not worth the time to read or listen to.

But it is quite presumptuous to simply proclaim that it's automatically junk because it's "free". In my opinion, there's a lot of stuff on terrestrial radio that deserves the same "junk" label. I'm sure we each have our lists. In fact, between talk show bloviating echo chambers, the same ten in a row every hour with no personality, and colon blow and credit card relief ads, I'd probably change the topic line to read Internet "Radio" vs. "Real" Radio...

Your statement is not too far in my mind from an Op-Ed piece in the Times not long ago by an established author, who basically said that if you have a book in your head, don't bother, because there's not enough room for the "good" writers as it is. Tough break, established writer. Deal with it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As someone who has repeatedly eaten his words over technical predictions, I say don't categorically rule out internet "radio" outperforming many terrestrial stations. It won't compete with local news providers, certainly, but for delivery of music......

State your logic. "It won't compete with local news providers, certainly,....."

Why not?

 

[GFreyman]

Several perspectives here.
1. Average listeners (your mom, uncle, grandmother, neighbor...i.e. not one of us) find the internet is just too complicated, even with a wifi radio - the enduring simplicity and reliability of broadcast radio is too often underestimated by technology and media pundits. Average listeners want familiarity and relevance. Having a choice of 20,000 internet stations available is like taking a kid to the world's largest candy factory - he'll still choose the Tootsie Rolls. Research from mature on-line countries (like the UK, France) tells us that almost all internet radio listening remains to simulcast or time shifted traditional broadcast radio.
2. For the broadcaster, which platform would you rather compete on - a 'walled garden' of 20-30 radio stations available on the FM dial, or 10,000 on the internet?
3. The technology. Right now internet radio is like the early days of Ike's freeways - 6 lane highways with hardly any traffic. But as soon as you get more than a few thousand people trying to access streamed content all at the same time, the freeways become like LA or NY in rush hour. And it's worse for mobile listening - each 3G cell site can support - wait for it - about 15 simultaneous streams. When more than ~15 people try to listen to wireless radio in the same location what happens? The phone company throttles bandwidth to ensure revenue generating voice traffic, not 'all you can eat' data, gets thru. At a radio conference a guy was heard saying the BBC (the largest broadcaster in the world) can't deliver more than a quarter of a million simultaneous radio streams. The UK population is 50 million and the BBC gets about 35 million of these, plus another 150 million World Service listeners. Something doesn't add up here. The real cost of internet broadcasting is not good for broadcasters - it's the most expensive distribution method. Period. (Ignore all those Shoutcast broadcasters with up to 10 streams, we're talking about something that scales up to hundreds of thousands or millions of listeners as reliably as over air broadcast).
4. Content. Traditional broadcasters just have to up their game now. Ever since consolidation and the homogenisation of radio by ClearChannel and their clones, something decent, good and exciting has gone out of US radio. The internet stations are not much better wither. When broadcasters realize that automated playlists of 200 tracks, voice tracking, liner cards and mechanical formatting offers nothing better than an Ipod, Pandora or Rhapsody , they may once again be inclined to re-invent personality radio. But don't hold your breath.

 

[TheBigA]

With all the splintering on the internet, no one source will ever generate the revenue required to PRODUCE quality programming. QUALITY programming---specifically quality talent, costs money. That is one of the reasons I believe all this talk of the internet overcoming radio is extremely optimistic, absurdly so.

The "splintering" you talk about is partly what's killing FM right now. Compare the shares of the top stations now and compare them to 25 years ago, when there were fewer stations, and even fewer "serious" radio stations. Back then, a station could get double digit shares. Not any more. But when you talk about an "infinite dial," with an infinite number of radio stations, with an infinite combination of musical choices, then you're driving down the ability of ad-supported media to exist.

Keep in mind that listeners don't always choose between FM and internet radio...it's all the same to them. Just as UHF used to be split off from VHF TV. But on cable, it's all one level playing field. That's where internet and FM is going.

 

[landtuna]

I'm thinking most "real listeners" (not us) listen to radio either while commuting or while at their work place. Commuting doesn't currently offer anything more than terrestrial or satt radio. The promise of wifi radio in autos and trains is years away. And I'm guessing the average commute time is less than one hour per person per workday. Listening at other than drive time and on weekends is essentially nothing.

At work however, for most office workers (those using a computer) internet listening is easy and probably accounts for the majority of hours by these people. This is probably where most of the "radio flight" has occurred.

Unless terrestrial radio can fight back with content not available to the internet listener it will continue to be relegated to drive time.

 

[average_listener]

As someone who has repeatedly eaten his words over technical predictions, I say don't categorically rule out internet "radio" outperforming many terrestrial stations. It won't compete with local news providers, certainly, but for delivery of music......

State your logic. "It won't compete with local news providers, certainly,....."

Why not?

No logic needed. If you're looking for Buffalo news, how is someone programming his stream in a basement in Topeka going to provide it for you? Or why would they even try?

Terrestrial still has its place in a snowstorm or other emergency situation (or just for finding our what's available on "Tradio"). Come to think of it, even that advantage is fading with all the alerts available on wireless devices.

I'm mainly thinking of my situation. I use sat radio and Slacker for my music sources.

 

[gr8oldies]

We'll first have to see what the pricing structure is. There are only so many monthly fees that people will pay. There certainly will be opportunities for niche websites, and there may well be a real life "Wayne's World" or "Tool Time" on the video side and something that will gain a lot of listeners on internet audio. Don't forget though, the Clear Channels, Time Warners and CBSs will be producing much of that content. As far as a guy in his basement playing all B sides all the time, he may get a very small niche audience but not one you can monetize.