Satellite: The End of Broadcast Radio?

[JJS]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

> > Will the receiver be a PC, a set-top box, or something yet
> > unnamed?
>
> It will be your "personal digital multipurpose device",
> upgraded from your cell phone.

Notice those channels aren't delivered over the cell network but via the web to your PC, then loaded onto the device. These are podcasts, with subscription fees, to proprietary devices. If you have to plan ahead, it isn't radio.

 

[k9ez]

> > I misread my data. Happens. Still, the total number of
> > satellite subscribers nationwide is lower than the number
> of
> > people who listen to radio in the New York City market
> > alone.
>
> Except that a satellite customer is an actual, paying
> customer. Not someone who merely sees the billboard:
> someone who actually checks into the motel. And does so
> again the next month. Commercial radio's customers are the
> entities in the groups' Accounts Receivable files. Not some
> multiple of self-selected Arbitron diarists. Based on how
> few return these diaries absolutely blank, we can easily
> demonstrate that everyone must be listening. And if folks
> were really flying through presets to escape stop sets,
> those weekly diaries would surely say so. (There's gotta be
> a better way, and those who advertise on direct response
> media such as Google have found it.)
>
> So, are there as many as a million paying customers of
> terrestrial commercial radio, 80 years into the industry's
> existence?
>


Yes! Try NPR. Even more tha satllite.

Also for commercial broadcast indirectly they are paying customers.

 

[954]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

Well, sicce this seems to be an announcement of a
product in the pipeline, rather than a
prediction, here are a few questions:

1. What company?

2. How are you involved with in?

3. When will it be generally available?

4. Where is it being developed, by whom?

5. What is it called?

6. Is there a website with product info?

7. How do I get out of my current cellular contract?

8. Do cellular phones have the power to drive speakers ... I
mean real, albeit small, speakers -- not a speakerphone
internal speaker.

I am curious, 954


> The future is as close as your local cell phone store.
>
> > Will the receiver be a PC, a set-top box, or something yet
>
> > unnamed?
>
> It will be your "personal digital multipurpose device",
> upgraded from your cell phone.
>
> > Will it be inexpensive to buy?
>
> Only $49.95 if you switch to OUR cell service! Two year
> commitment required.
>
> > Will there be subscription fees or will it be ad supported
>
> > or both?
>
> How about 435 Clear Channels of commercial free "music" for
> a measley $7.00 per month? Cheaper than satellite.
>
> > Will they be licensed like stations or have exclusive
> > agreements with municipalities, like cable?
>
> We don't need no stinking licenses.
>
> > Will Clear Channel and/or Comcast own them all?
>
> Ummmmmm. Not in the beginning, at least.
>
> > Will it be more of the same junk or will we have niche
> > programming?
>
> With 435 channels, they'll have to have some niche content,
> right?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Prairie Home Companion Coming To Miami in Feb!


South Florida Radio Pages</P>

 

[radionut987]

> In the future, will the only people listening to broadcast
> radio be those who can't afford satellite? The quality of
> broadcast radio has been on the decline, local formats are
> vanishing, satellite offers the listener the promise of
> whatever he wants, when he wants it. Will broadcast radio
> be a thing of the past?
>

The way things are going right now, that just might be the case. Most of the so-called "leaders" who run terrestrial radio stations, especially those running the Clear Channel's of the world, don't care about their product one bit.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

435? they could do the all-oboe channel with that many.<P ID="signature">______________
Have a Happy New Year!
http://www.thebig8.net/have_a_happy_new_year_with_cklw.mp3</P>

 

[Slinky]

The Future Is Now, But It's Expensive

Motorola iRadio, which the other poster referenced, isn't radio at all, but saved podcasts that aren't downloaded wirelessly.

If you want real radio over wireless broadband, it is available, but you need:

- a PDA, smartphone, or laptop that you don't mind carrying all the time
- $60 a month to pay Verizon for your connection.

If you've got that, you can listen to high quality Internet streaming anywhere you've got a cellphone signal.

 

[JJS]

> > So, are there as many as a million paying customers of
> > terrestrial commercial radio, 80 years into the industry's
> > existence?
> >
> Yes! Try NPR. Even more tha satllite.
>
> Also for commercial broadcast indirectly they are paying
> customers.

Right, that's why I singled out terrestrial commercial radio. NPR stations are indeed partly member-funded. I can even buy that there are more than a million subscribers to NPR stations nationwide, but I'd bet fewer than satellite's nine million. And satellite radio is just a bit over four years in, going on forever.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

> > > Will the receiver be a PC, a set-top box, or something
> yet
> > > unnamed?
> >
> > It will be your "personal digital multipurpose device",
> > upgraded from your cell phone.
>
> Notice those channels aren't delivered over the cell network
> but via the web to your PC, then loaded onto the device.
> These are podcasts, with subscription fees, to proprietary
> devices. If you have to plan ahead, it isn't radio.

You didn't read everything, but you have proven to be selective in replying only to those portions of the post that make satellite radio look good, so that is understandable.

It will be a broadband stream, not a podcast. And given that the percentage of people who have cell phones is much, much greater than the number who have shelled out money for satellite radio, which technology do you think has the advantage?

Thanks for playing. Don Pardo, tell him what his consolation prize is.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[ynot2k]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

> 435? they could do the all-oboe channel with that many.
>
Oh yeah? But what about all-bagpipes??????

 

[KMRichards]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

> > 435? they could do the all-oboe channel with that many.
> >
> Oh yeah? But what about all-bagpipes??????

Tentatively planned for channel 392. <P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[JJS]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

> It will be a broadband stream, not a podcast. And given
> that the percentage of people who have cell phones is much,
> much greater than the number who have shelled out money for
> satellite radio, which technology do you think has the
> advantage?
>
> Thanks for playing. Don Pardo, tell him what his
> consolation prize is.

Please. Look up the definition of "streaming" on Google, in the technology and audio context:

"A one-way audio transmission over a data network. It is widely used on the Web as well as private intranets to deliver audio on demand or an audio broadcast (Internet radio). Unlike sound files (WAV, MP3, etc.) that are played after they are downloaded, streaming audio is played within a few seconds of requesting it, and the data is not stored permanently in the computer."

The iRadio, by contrast, is a subscription download that is intended to be decoded later on a portable device. "[P]odcasts, with subscription fees, to proprietary devices" describes it just fine; "broadband stream" does not. It is, at any rate, definitely not any kind of radio but somewhere in the iPod or portable audio storage category.

My personal taste does run to SatRad, but I advocate for consumer choice in all forms of digital audio. I'm all in praise of iPod-like devices; they customize audio to one's taste even more than satellite does, at the expense of the immediacy and convenience of radio. I support repeater localization for satellite, but also the use of the cell network for broadcast-like one-to-many audio, competing both with satellite and AM/FM radio. The iRadio doesn't use that strategy, but, to me, the option can't arrive soon enough.

So you read me wrong. I prefer satellite for myself, but advocate for any technology which competes with broadcast radio. Even as I financially support the local NPR.

The consolation prize is yours, as the audio technology I've sought for ages is now in its golden era.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Streaming Cell Content

Conceivably, you can already access any streamed audio content from a website if you have a Internet-enabled phone and/or cell-enabled PDA via the included browser.

Cellular access in most areas is limited to 128K, which is too slow for a decent music stream. What's happening in the telecommunications world is that wireless (and wired) companies are ramping up to deploy IP-based high-speed networks that will move whatever bits your want - phone conversations, Internet access, or multiple forms of digital content - including audio and video - either provided by the cell company, or available via the Internet. In reality, every phone will be an "Internet" phone whether you know it or not.

Just to give you an idea of where we're headed, check this out. Fiber to your house, with options for very high speed Internet, digital TV, and multiple phone lines for a pretty reasonable price. It's already available in limited areas, and is expanding, as is high-speed wireless access via cellular providers.

 

[KMRichards]

Re: CC already has its fingers in the pie

> > It will be a broadband stream, not a podcast.

> Please. Look up the definition of "streaming" on Google, in
> the technology and audio context:
>
> "A one-way audio transmission over a data network. It is
> widely used on the Web as well as private intranets to
> deliver audio on demand or an audio broadcast (Internet
> radio). Unlike sound files (WAV, MP3, etc.) that are played
> after they are downloaded, streaming audio is played within
> a few seconds of requesting it, and the data is not stored
> permanently in the computer."

I'm sorry. That still is not a podcast. And your talking about iRadio subsequent to the above (which I will not bother repeating), does not suddenly make true your previous statement that wireless broadband would be podcasts.

> So you read me wrong.

No, sir, I did not. You are attempting to prove that an orange is really a banana.

> The consolation prize is yours, as the audio technology I've
> sought for ages is now in its golden era.

No, you still are the losing contestant in this debate. So you get the home version of the game, a case of Turtle Wax, and a set of the Encyclopedia Internationale.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[Number_Six]

> In the future, will the only people listening to broadcast
> radio be those who can't afford satellite? The quality of
> broadcast radio has been on the decline, local formats are
> vanishing, satellite offers the listener the promise of
> whatever he wants, when he wants it. Will broadcast radio
> be a thing of the past?
>

Probably not, because I have satellite radio and I still listen to broadcast radio.

 

[scottclem]

> In the future, will the only people listening to broadcast
> radio be those who can't afford satellite? The quality of
> broadcast radio has been on the decline, local formats are
> vanishing, satellite offers the listener the promise of
> whatever he wants, when he wants it. Will broadcast radio
> be a thing of the past?
>


Just as much as it was with the debut of MTV....you know, when "Video Killed The Radio Star".

In other words, no, it will not.