My take on Satellite/Internet Radio

[TheOriginalLarry]

I had XM for a while, then ditched it when I realized I was getting better music variety and more/better instant news coverage on events happening around the world, straight from their local sources from stations on the internet. Plus, it doesn't cost anything extra to hear it.

When wi-fi really begins to take off and wi-fi ready portable/home/car stereos are commonplace, a new age of radio will dawn. Anyone can start an internet radio station for less than $500 (even cheaper with second hand parts), bringing the power back into the hands of the people.)

It wouldn't surprise me if the terrestrial radio industry and the RIAA take this to the highest court in America (both of whom are stubbornly refusing to change their painfully outdated business/programming models to accomodate and grow WITH their new high tech competitiors. They still would rather try and shove the genie back in the bottle and collect the money the old fashioned way in a presumed captive market than COMPETE for it.)

Besides, the RIAA proved themselves obsolete with the first MP3 downloading suit. What use is a company that KNEW when the first MP1 compressed music file was made (in Germany, 1987) that there would be trouble some day. Yet never said a word about it until MP3s were everywhere and far beyond any HOPE of control over 13 years later.

Satellite radio muscled it's way in with cash for the RIAA (and with free advertising with Howard Stern. ) Since the majority of internet-only broadcasters are mostly made of just ordinary people without big cash, it would not surprise me if that-even more than the illegal MP3 downloaders become the next BIG target of the RIAA. It's far easier to control who plays the music than controlling who actually GETS the music today... <P ID="signature">______________
"If I were in this business only for the business, I wouldn't be in this business." Samuel Goldwyn

[email protected]


</P>

 

[RichJohnson]

Portability is certainly the next big thing in Internet streaming, and the future is happening elsewhere.
When I was in Busan, South Korea last month, I went to an IT exhibition that was part of the APEC summit. Once I tore my eyes away from the 108 inch LCD screen, I took a look at something the size of a Palm Pilot that was showing an HD-quality video. I thought it was TV, but no.
It was HD-quality video streaming, courtesy of the new super-high-speed wireless net being built in nearly the entire country.
We'll get it someday - when the market decides. I hope I'm still alive.

RJ<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by RichJohnson on 12/05/05 11:42 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[TheOriginalLarry]

> Portability is certainly the next big thing in Internet
> streaming, and the future is happening elsewhere.
> When I was in Busan, South Korea last month, I went to an IT
> exhibition that was part of the APEC summit. Once I tore my
> eyes away from the 108 inch LCD screen,

Oh great. I just bought a 62" Sony DLP (rear projection) HDTV and now THAT is obsolete? (LOL!) But seriously, my wife is complaining that is WAAAY too big for our living room and that she wants something smaller she can hang on the wall...

I took a look at
> something the size of a Palm Pilot that was showing an
> HD-quality video. I thought it was TV, but no.
> It was HD-quality video streaming, courtesy of the new
> super-high-speed wireless net being built in nearly the
> entire country.
> We'll get it someday - when the market decides. I hope I'm
> still alive.

You will be. Mark my words. The market has pretty much already decided. It's a shame our IT companies have to develop this technology in places like South Korea when there is a ready and hungry market for it right here. It's just a copyright minefield in America

The future is here. I currently use Clearwire wireless internet right here in Mount Vernon...

http://www.clearwire.com/

Now, they just have to build more powerful transmitters (or better line of sight with the current ones) and computer companies have to make smaller, more portable multimedia computers and we're good to go. I'm sure if they offer people a truly portable wireless internet and computer entertainment package at a decent price-everybody will want one (at least more than these crappy X-Box 360s. I had to take mine back becuse it kept overheating...)

I see a day coming where all you need is a small, almost invisible antenna on the roof/trunk of your home/car/RV or headphones and you can tune in the world, radio, TV-you can download music or broadcasts, record one as you're watching/listening to another (like DVR.) or just surf the net. Anywhere, anytime. You can make/recieve phone calls and take photos with the same computer.

The technology is here. The DEMAND is insatiable. But it's old cronies like the RIAA/MPAA that are blocking the way of progress for it in America or we would already have it here by now. Unquestionably..


>
> RJ
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"If I were in this business only for the business, I wouldn't be in this business." Samuel Goldwyn

[email protected]


</P>

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

> ... Mark my words. The market has pretty much
> already decided. It's a shame our IT companies have to
> develop this technology in places like South Korea when
> there is a ready and hungry market for it right here. It's
> just a copyright minefield in America

It's really ironic that every time we have a technology opportunity (or new landscape) that the first wave tends to be a land grab on the patent/Intellectual property and legal fronts. Downloads were one of the most innovative distribution solutions to come along but the lawyers got involved and we wound up with the original napster kind of work-arounds that were blatantly bad for artists. Streaming showed up but AFTRA/SAG and recording artists all got in the way and the technology was grounded for years. New internet ideas arise; but people secure patents on ideas that should NOT be patentable in the first place (such as attempts to patent "collecting data using the Internet").

We went through this on DAT recorders, on Beta/VHS introductions, and so forth -- and in the end the consumer demand usually puts the lawyers back in the closet --- but at a huge opportunity cost for the time we lost on consumers adopting those new opportunities. Also in the mix are the "standards" setters --- and we probably all remember the "multiple AM stereo solutions and we'll let the market decide which is best" debacle.


Future of content distribution is really intriguing right now. On one hand you have the technology race -- who's going to give us the best and cheapest bandwidth (satellite, cable, wireless, etc.) and who's going to jam the most interesting (not necessarily mass appeal) content ON that bandwidth. In some cases, it may be the internet broadcasters, LPFM, bloggers; on other hand some likely to be redistributed (or time-shifted) content from the entertainment mega-houses. Unfortunately one of the biggest opportunities is it COULD be forward-thinking broadcasters. But, I'm very concerned that may be an endangered species.

 

[TheOriginalLarry]

> > ... Mark my words. The market has pretty much
> > already decided. It's a shame our IT companies have to
> > develop this technology in places like South Korea when
> > there is a ready and hungry market for it right here. It's
>
> > just a copyright minefield in America
>
> It's really ironic that every time we have a technology
> opportunity (or new landscape) that the first wave tends to
> be a land grab on the patent/Intellectual property and legal
> fronts. Downloads were one of the most innovative
> distribution solutions to come along but the lawyers got
> involved and we wound up with the original napster kind of
> work-arounds that were blatantly bad for artists. Streaming
> showed up but AFTRA/SAG and recording artists all got in the
> way and the technology was grounded for years. New internet
> ideas arise; but people secure patents on ideas that should
> NOT be patentable in the first place (such as attempts to
> patent "collecting data using the Internet").
>
> We went through this on DAT recorders, on Beta/VHS
> introductions, and so forth -- and in the end the consumer
> demand usually puts the lawyers back in the closet --- but
> at a huge opportunity cost for the time we lost on consumers
> adopting those new opportunities. Also in the mix are the
> "standards" setters --- and we probably all remember the
> "multiple AM stereo solutions and we'll let the market
> decide which is best" debacle.
>
>
> Future of content distribution is really intriguing right
> now. On one hand you have the technology race -- who's
> going to give us the best and cheapest bandwidth (satellite,
> cable, wireless, etc.) and who's going to jam the most
> interesting (not necessarily mass appeal) content ON that
> bandwidth. In some cases, it may be the internet
> broadcasters, LPFM, bloggers; on other hand some likely to
> be redistributed (or time-shifted) content from the
> entertainment mega-houses. Unfortunately one of the biggest
> opportunities is it COULD be forward-thinking broadcasters.
> But, I'm very concerned that may be an endangered species.

Enforcing music/content distribution laws in the digital age is as enforcable and successful as a war on drugs. We have to move away from the idea that "get tough" policies are going to work because they don't. They are just ego-boosts for politicians and self righteous snobs, not solutions.

What's the incentive for buying a Black Eyed Peas CD when you hear "My Humps" 10 bazillion times a day on KUBE, CFBT and KBKS? (S--t, at that stage, what's the point of even DOWNLOADING the MP3?)

I don't understand the logic of the music/radio industry these days. They already play a song into the ground for free and expect people to buy it. In the end, what is this for? The artists or propping up dying corporations (record companies, mall retailers)? The artists only see a small sliver of the profits of each CD they sell this way. The record companies keep the rest.

And if somebody gets into music (or radio) from strictly the business end of it, then let's just say they are not TRUE musicians or broadcasters because profit is NEVER the motive. Entertaining people is.

Music is NOT a product. It is just music. It's everywhere, just like the air we breathe. Did you know "Happy Birthday To You" is a copyrighted song? Some folks (usually Republican) may be big staunch supporters of corporate America's rights over individuals, but if the current holders of "Happy Birthday To You" (Time-Warner Music, licensed through ASCAP) found THEM singing that song in public (which a public birthday party of two or more is), watch THEM scream as royalty fees are assessed.

The record corporations are pissed off that the digital revolution they ushered in so hastily with the sheer profit of grossly overpriced $17 dollar CDs in the mid '80s is now coming back home 20 years later with a bloody hatchet (maybe killing off vinyl so quickly wasn't such a good idea...)

Again, don't blame the consumer or technology. We have freedom of choice in America and we are not going to let any corporation take that away from us. If people like Britney Spears quits singing because she isn't getting rich enough, then fine. We don't need her. She's OLD anyway-and that's coming from TODAY'S teens (and you know what? They're RIGHT! UGH!-What a gargoyle...)
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"If I were in this business only for the business, I wouldn't be in this business." Samuel Goldwyn

[email protected]


</P>