Is Internet Radio "REAL" Radio?

[nitnitr]

I do not take exception with your statements at all as I see radio as a whole, both net and terrestrial in that same landscape.

I do think of internet radio like FM radio in say 1963...it wasn't openly available in all cars, radio companies had no clue what to do with the FM flame throwers they had...so they just sort of regurgitated info from one source to the next....until AOR took root...I think Internet radio needs an AOR awakening to legitimize it to the masses.

In no way shape or form is Internet radio the same as "real radio"...in fact it is more powerful and able to connect at levels far greater than am/fm/xm or any other _m ever dreamed possible.

Helloagain, I will reiterate your comment that Internet radio is more powerful in some regard to "standard" radio.

If you want to get down to the technical aspects of radio, then yes, Internet radio isn't the same as terrestrial radio.

What it really boils down to is delivery of content. If one can access the information from anywhere, car, home, office, phone or whatever device is available in the future, then those of us programming on the Internet may have the same access to all listeners (barring regulation-which is bound to happen-ugh). Those with the money may find a way to keep out the "small fry's," like independent Internet only broadcasters. Let's hope that doesn't happen. Diversity is a key to those of us on the web and I believe to listeners too.

Once again, I will mention that some on the Internet do not have a clue on how to program (in fact, some in terrestrial radio too-though I don't have all the answers either, and I'll admit it).

Speaking to Internet broadcasters, look to your listener's interests and not necessarily your own. You'll gain listeners in the long run. If you are doing it just for you, then fine, it is a hobby to you, and something fun for you to do in your spare time, and that is OK-don't get me wrong.

For other stations wishing to gain listeners, you'll have to put in more effort to find out what your listeners want, and maybe you'll have a shot with future technology in being a big player if you want, barring regulation.

Don't get me wrong, I have a high respect for most in the terrestrial radio industry. I just think in general, terrestrial radio is a bit formula based, not that I don't look at music radio charts and current trends.

I try to stay in contact with listeners through the station site, also through newsletters and promotions. Again, finances come into play, and I can't always keep in touch as much as I would like. Maybe that will reverse itself as technology advances.

Internet only broadcasters; we're getting there. It may only be a matter of time.

 

[TheBigA]

If one can access the information from anywhere, car, home, office, phone or whatever device is available in the future, then those of us programming on the Internet may have the same access to all listeners (barring regulation-which is bound to happen-ugh).

If it becomes successful, there will be regulation. And more fees. That is something you can count on.

And as we've been saying, the hope for universal wifi (free or otherwise) is a long way off.

Access to listeners won't matter if you provide the same content as OTA. That's what Sirius discovered. And the fact is there isn't much audio content that moves the meters more than what OTA is currently providing. The main advantage of internet radio is the fact that it's two-way, and so far, most of the smaller internet broadcasters really haven't taken advantage of that yet.

 

[Casey]

If one can access the information from anywhere, car, home, office, phone or whatever device is available in the future, then those of us programming on the Internet may have the same access to all listeners (barring regulation-which is bound to happen-ugh).

If it becomes successful, there will be regulation. And more fees. That is something you can count on.

And as we've been saying, the hope for universal wifi (free or otherwise) is a long way off.

Access to listeners won't matter if you provide the same content as OTA. That's what Sirius discovered. And the fact is there isn't much audio content that moves the meters more than what OTA is currently providing. The main advantage of internet radio is the fact that it's two-way, and so far, most of the smaller internet broadcasters really haven't taken advantage of that yet.

As usual, you are quick to assume regulation is coming to internet radio. Yet, the FCC lacks the authority to even enforce net-neutrality laws. So please, explain to me in detail how they are going to gain authority over the bits and bytes that make-up the internet radio landscape.

What you are saying is nothing more than what all the extremists said not so long ago about Email. Everyone was saying that the government was going to take control and charge this "supposed tax" on every email sent because it damaged the postal services revenue... never happened.

The FCC (or anyone for that matter) CANNOT simply claim control over the internet radio business and start regulating. The FCC's power over the internet does not exist, and never has. But in case you were unaware, internet radio does not use public airwaves... or public anything. Everything is privately owned, making the FCC's power nonexistent. I can set up a streaming server... or an email server... or even a DNS server. And the FCC can do nothing about it. This is not about the "radio" aspect. This is about what "internet radio" technically is. It is not this big broadcasting tower on a hill, it is most likely a server sitting on a rack somewhere delivering packets to a computer somewhere across the world, possibly in a different country.

The only regulations that apply are those put in place by copyright & similar laws (mainly DMCA) and content owners. You will find though that many of those laws and regulations can be bypassed quite easily once you license your service directly, or make your service interactive (as is the case with Slacker, Spotify, etc).

 

[TheBigA]

As usual, you are quick to assume regulation is coming to internet radio. Yet, the FCC lacks the authority to even enforce net-neutrality laws. So please, explain to me in detail how they are going to gain authority over the bits and bytes that make-up the internet radio landscape.

You assume the regulation has to come from the FCC. My point is that if it becomes successful, the government will find a way to regulate it. Even if they have to create another Commission with specific oversight. This is not an extremist point of view. Just read governmental history.

 

[Casey]

As usual, you are quick to assume regulation is coming to internet radio. Yet, the FCC lacks the authority to even enforce net-neutrality laws. So please, explain to me in detail how they are going to gain authority over the bits and bytes that make-up the internet radio landscape.

You assume the regulation has to come from the FCC. My point is that if it becomes successful, the government will find a way to regulate it. Even if they have to create another Commission with specific oversight. This is not an extremist point of view. Just read governmental history.

Firstly, I have read government history in relations to the internet.

Secondly, what you are saying is completely false. There is no proof here, only your own hopes and desires. Why would the government make an agency to overlook internet radio? Beyond copyright reasons, there is no ground for the government to stand on when it comes to regulating. Last time I checked, there was already a means of handling copyright concerns.

 

[TheBigA]

Firstly, I have read government history in relations to the internet.

Secondly, what you are saying is completely false. There is no proof here, only your own hopes and desires.

You're inventing my "hopes and desires." This is not about what you or I want. This is about American governmental history. For over 200 years, the government has come up with new regulatory agencies to oversee things. The internet is not exempt.

 

[Casey]

So far the internet has been pretty much exempt, to the point where MetroPCS has completely ignored any and all net neutrality rules. Sure tiny laws are put in place to protect children, privacy, etc. But they all really accomplish almost... nothing.

I have no doubt that the internet will gain some regulation at some point. But in no way will it currently affect internet radio. Currently almost all current and purposed regulation of the internet has to do with copyright, spam, hacking, harassment, privacy, terrorism, etc. Really, only copyright is related to internet radio, and is already in place.

Beyond copyright, what rules do you think will be put in place that affect internet radio?

 

[pellmell]

I love webcasting. It didn't occur to me until I read this post, but I only listen to web-based media. Radio is just too boring and full of advertising.

 

[TheBigA]

Beyond copyright, what rules do you think will be put in place that affect internet radio?

Take a look at broadcasting, cable, and satellite for a hint of what's to come.

The gov't wants revenue. They're making billions selling spectrum space to telecom, meanwhile they make zero on internet.

 

[DIRTYSOUTHRADIO]

lol how the hell can that guy say am radio is better then internet radio half the time where i live the am stations sound like crap and i can never sit there listen to station that sound like crap it like how these djs get on blogtalkradio and i now have a radio show and sound like music is running threw a tin can

 

[Tom Wells]

lol how the hell can that guy say am radio is better then internet radio half the time where i live the am stations sound like crap and i can never sit there listen to station that sound like crap it like how these djs get on blogtalkradio and i now have a radio show and sound like music is running threw a tin can

I'm so sorry you have only been exposed to bad AM radios and/or can only receive stations with poor audio quality.

If interested I could certainly help you acquire a decent AM radio at little cost.

Either AM or FM can sound as good or bad you wish, there is nothing magic about audio quality.

 

[deltas69]

Hopefully the stations have better quality than his grammar.. ;D

 

[landtuna]

Perhaps you noticed his sig line "We Are Number One For All Dirty South Rap Music".

Predictable.

 

[deltas69]

lol how can his station sound like a tin can...with all that BASS ??? ???

 

[DIRTYSOUTHRADIO]

what wrong with my tag line we are number one for dirty south rap music Ive got 6 awards to prove it

 

[DIRTYSOUTHRADIO]

lol how can his station sound like a tin can...with all that BASS Huh Huh my station sound fine

 

[nitnitr]

If one can access the information from anywhere, car, home, office, phone or whatever device is available in the future, then those of us programming on the Internet may have the same access to all listeners (barring regulation-which is bound to happen-ugh).

If it becomes successful, there will be regulation. And more fees. That is something you can count on.

And as we've been saying, the hope for universal wifi (free or otherwise) is a long way off.

Access to listeners won't matter if you provide the same content as OTA. That's what Sirius discovered. And the fact is there isn't much audio content that moves the meters more than what OTA is currently providing. The main advantage of internet radio is the fact that it's two-way, and so far, most of the smaller internet broadcasters really haven't taken advantage of that yet.

As usual, you are quick to assume regulation is coming to internet radio. Yet, the FCC lacks the authority to even enforce net-neutrality laws. So please, explain to me in detail how they are going to gain authority over the bits and bytes that make-up the internet radio landscape.

What you are saying is nothing more than what all the extremists said not so long ago about Email. Everyone was saying that the government was going to take control and charge this "supposed tax" on every email sent because it damaged the postal services revenue... never happened.

The FCC (or anyone for that matter) CANNOT simply claim control over the internet radio business and start regulating. The FCC's power over the internet does not exist, and never has. But in case you were unaware, internet radio does not use public airwaves... or public anything. Everything is privately owned, making the FCC's power nonexistent. I can set up a streaming server... or an email server... or even a DNS server. And the FCC can do nothing about it. This is not about the "radio" aspect. This is about what "internet radio" technically is. It is not this big broadcasting tower on a hill, it is most likely a server sitting on a rack somewhere delivering packets to a computer somewhere across the world, possibly in a different country.

The only regulations that apply are those put in place by copyright & similar laws (mainly DMCA) and content owners. You will find though that many of those laws and regulations can be bypassed quite easily once you license your service directly, or make your service interactive (as is the case with Slacker, Spotify, etc).

There are always ways to regulate, as it pertains to our government in the U.S. Create a new agency; allow current entities to have more autonomy, etc.

As to whether it will happen, that is up to debate.

In the meantime, lets embrace the freedom we have, and do what we do as Internet broadcasters.

I'm not worrying about future regulation. I'm just thinking that we, as Internet broadcasters, could be swallowed up by other entities, and not to our advantage.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm just thinking that we, as Internet broadcasters, could be swallowed up by other entities, and not to our advantage.

I don't see much point in buying an existing internet station. Just start another one.

 

[arnoldevns]

I think the original question is pretty much impossible to answer. You have to first define what "real" radio is. I might define real "radio" as any live or recorded audio program sent via wireless transmission to a receiver. The early days of internet streaming would not qualify since the internet generally required the use of a computer tied by wire to the internet. Now that the internet is widely available via wireless means on small devices like phones, tablets and laptops, I would absolutely qualify internet "radio" streams as "real radio." This does not speak to the quality of what is broadcast. Indeed, there are many internet only stations that I think sound much better than some regular broadcast stations.

There is one huge difference between broadcast and internet radio: listenership. Broadcast radio has a huge advantage, and likely will for a very long time. The top internet-only radio station in the world likely has an average listenership of under a thousand. That would barely nudge the ratings needle in most US radio markets. I would say most of the stations you find on places like live365 have average listenerships of 3-5 people. Taken as a whole, places like live365 have enough streams to sell enough advertising and subscriptions to make it a workable business model. But that entails selling ads over thousands of streams and charging about 10 bucks a month for other people to listen ad-free. Ultimately, more people will become listeners to internet streams and it will be easier for someone to make a living out of running a station from their living room.. but it will be rare. It will though, in my opinion, be "real radio."

 

[wsimkins]

The top internet-only radio station in the world likely has an average listenership of under a thousand.

What you say is very true. One of my stations peaks at 1,300 but average listenership at any given time is 490-505. Having been in the streaming business, I see most stations at 5-10.

But, still, my listeners consider it real radio.