Where do you see IBOC going?

[JohnnyElectron]

I brought my XM radio in to the office so that I didn't tie up the corporate bandwidth - as you are correct - the VOiP phone hogs the BW and is priority over audio streaming.

 

[awj223]

Many employees listening to streaming audio certainly does take bandwidth. The company VoIP phone system (which most companies will be using in the future - it's already starting to happen, slowly but surely) takes even more bandwidth. Guess who gets the priority.

(Full disclosure: My employer makes VoIP-based phone systems so I'm not exactly unbiased, but I do test the systems and know how much bandwidth a given codec uses - approximately 8 to 80 kbps depending on the codec. Multiply that by 100 or so for a small company.)

Sure, but let's do a little math. Let's assume that the average audio stream is about 35 kbps, and 40% of the 100 people are listening on the net at a given time (even that figure seems high because a some people would probably listen to iPods and still more would listen to nothing at all). That's a sustained load of about 1.4 Mbps even in this extreme case. My own DSL line could handle that easily and a 100 person company likely has a faster connection. For a large, 1000 person company, with 40% listening, it would be about 14 Mbps. Again, not that much considering that a company that size probably has multiple T3 connections, and the 40% figure is an extremely high estimate.

Hey awj223, in the battle of the receptionists vs. the IT guys, I'll put my money on the IT guys. 99.9 percent of employees wouldn't have a clue about working around blocked ports or IPs.

As for employee morale, regular radio works fine and doesn't tax company resources.

Yes, but if it's engineering vs. the IT guys, I'll put my money on engineering.

 

[Radioman100]

Sure, but let's do a little math. Let's assume that the average audio stream is about 35 kbps, and 40% of the 100 people are listening on the net at a given time (even that figure seems high because a some people would probably listen to iPods and still more would listen to nothing at all). That's a sustained load of about 1.4 Mbps even in this extreme case. My own DSL line could handle that easily and a 100 person company likely has a faster connection. For a large, 1000 person company, with 40% listening, it would be about 14 Mbps. Again, not that much considering that a company that size probably has multiple T3 connections, and the 40% figure is an extremely high estimate.

Bandwidth is money. Money to support employee web activities on company time is wasted money, not to mention added load on the rest of the business networks like switches, routers and firewalls. I don't see most companies buying into web radio fetishes. Especially when there are alternatives like terrestrial radio, XM and iPods that do not tax their infrastructure unnecessarily.

Yes, but if it's engineering vs. the IT guys, I'll put my money on engineering.

It would depend on the engineering discipline. In my office and most radio stations, definitely. If you're talking about a bunch of mechanical engineers though, I'd still put my money on the IT guys. Easily 95% of employees in an average business would have no idea how to circumvent IT measures to prevent wasted bandwidth and network traffic because of internet radio. The other 5% would probably have to think about how much they like having their jobs vs. how much they like having web radio. Most big companies have rather strict IT policies.

Bottom line: The average wage slave is going to have no idea how to hack web radio onto their desktop, and the ones that might be able to couldn't afford the consequences of doing it.

 

[awj223]

Bandwidth is money. Money to support employee web activities on company time is wasted money, not to mention added load on the rest of the business networks like switches, routers and firewalls. I don't see most companies buying into web radio fetishes. Especially when there are alternatives like terrestrial radio, XM and iPods that do not tax their infrastructure unnecessarily.

Regardless, I believe that net radio will be a significant part of the future. Bandwidth that would otherwise go unused isn't as expensive as long as you can boot that traffic to the lowest priority class. You also should remember that as time passes, the comparative amount of bandwidth taken by streaming audio will be less and less. In the days of 28.8k modems, listening to a stream took 100% of my bandwidth. Today, it takes less than 1% of it. In the future, that number may be something closer to 0.01%.

 

[Tom Wells]

Bandwidth may be cheap, and get cheaper, but the real impediment to streaming audio is the pointy-haired boss
who doesn't care about the IT issues. He just wants to control people at work. Banning web radio streams is
a great old-school move that makes them feel powerful. They'll all be gone in about 10 years.

 

[Radioman100]

Regardless, I believe that net radio will be a significant part of the future. Bandwidth that would otherwise go unused isn't as expensive as long as you can boot that traffic to the lowest priority class. You also should remember that as time passes, the comparative amount of bandwidth taken by streaming audio will be less and less. In the days of 28.8k modems, listening to a stream took 100% of my bandwidth. Today, it takes less than 1% of it. In the future, that number may be something closer to 0.01%.

Ahhh yes. The future! Anything's possible in the future! Why didn't I think of that?

Here's the deal... You may be able to configure switches and routers to mitigate the negative effects of streaming audio somewhat, but why? Why put up with any performance hit on the network just for employee enjoyment of net radio when they can listen to a variety of different sources that don't impede your network performance in any way at all? Do you think companies are going to look for ways to balance the company networks for work and pleasure?

As companies seek to monetize net radio, interfaces and portals will become bloated and probably adware driven, probably more than today. Do you really think companies are going to allow those programs on machines running their own custom applications?

Here's a real world example of what I'm talking about. I rented a car at Enterprise a while back. When it came time to print out my paperwork, the printer didn't print. The manager of the branch (not just some flunky, the manager) called their corporate IT help desk. The corporate IT guy remotely accessed the machine and fixed the problem with the print spooling. My paperwork printed, and we were all able to get on with our day. I'm certain IT work is handled this way at many, if not most large companies. Workstations have to be standardized so they can be easily serviced as needed. How do you suppose things would have gone if the Enterprise remote IT tech had logged in, found the printer not working and also found the machine's resources bogged down with programs running strictly for the entertainment of the employees?

Think about our own industry. Some traffic and billing software is dependent on Windows being set up in a somewhat specialized manner. Do you think your GM would be happy about paying Marketron a support fee because some traffic person installed a program that interfered with it? How many times have you had to fix a production machine because someone downloaded their own favorite MP3 player and it took posession of all file extensions having anything to do with audio and it ticked off all the other people that use the machine?

It simply doesn't make sense that companies would be willing to let their employees go wild with personal entertainment applications like net radio. It effects bandwidth, it effects network efficiency and it could potentially cause problems with business applications.

At work listening is going to belong to radio for a very long time to come.

 

[vsa]

Regardless, I believe that net radio will be a significant part of the future. Bandwidth that would otherwise go unused isn't as expensive as long as you can boot that traffic to the lowest priority class. You also should remember that as time passes, the comparative amount of bandwidth taken by streaming audio will be less and less. In the days of 28.8k modems, listening to a stream took 100% of my bandwidth. Today, it takes less than 1% of it. In the future, that number may be something closer to 0.01%.

Ahhh yes. The future! Anything's possible in the future! Why didn't I think of that?

Here's the deal... You may be able to configure switches and routers to mitigate the negative effects of streaming audio somewhat, but why? Why put up with any performance hit on the network just for employee enjoyment of net radio when they can listen to a variety of different sources that don't impede your network performance in any way at all? Do you think companies are going to look for ways to balance the company networks for work and pleasure?

As companies seek to monetize net radio, interfaces and portals will become bloated and probably adware driven, probably more than today. Do you really think companies are going to allow those programs on machines running their own custom applications?

Here's a real world example of what I'm talking about. I rented a car at Enterprise a while back. When it came time to print out my paperwork, the printer didn't print. The manager of the branch (not just some flunky, the manager) called their corporate IT help desk. The corporate IT guy remotely accessed the machine and fixed the problem with the print spooling. My paperwork printed, and we were all able to get on with our day. I'm certain IT work is handled this way at many, if not most large companies. Workstations have to be standardized so they can be easily serviced as needed. How do you suppose things would have gone if the Enterprise remote IT tech had logged in, found the printer not working and also found the machine's resources bogged down with programs running strictly for the entertainment of the employees?

Think about our own industry. Some traffic and billing software is dependent on Windows being set up in a somewhat specialized manner. Do you think your GM would be happy about paying Marketron a support fee because some traffic person installed a program that interfered with it? How many times have you had to fix a production machine because someone downloaded their own favorite MP3 player and it took posession of all file extensions having anything to do with audio and it ticked off all the other people that use the machine?

It simply doesn't make sense that companies would be willing to let their employees go wild with personal entertainment applications like net radio. It effects bandwidth, it effects network efficiency and it could potentially cause problems with business applications.

At work listening is going to belong to radio for a very long time to come.

This is really weird. How did the post above from ten years ago make it into this thread?

He was right, of course. Internet radio was a fad, a flash-in-the-pan that died out in 1999. In the meantime, traditional radio has been going through a huge boom since that time. Stations are busy hiring, giving people huge raises, and profits are through the roof! Clear Channel should soon own at least 2,000 stations - business is so good. And of course, stores just can't keep these new HD radios in stock. I hear fights have broken out at Radio Shacks over the last Accurian HD radio in stock. HD radio is all the rage! People are using them at work. ;D

 

[Radioman100]

This is really weird. How did the post above from ten years ago make it into this thread?

He was right, of course. Internet radio was a fad, a flash-in-the-pan that died out in 1999. In the meantime, traditional radio has been going through a huge boom since that time. Stations are busy hiring, giving people huge raises, and profits are through the roof! Clear Channel should soon own at least 2,000 stations - business is so good. And of course, stores just can't keep these new HD radios in stock. I hear fights have broken out at Radio Shacks over the last Accurian HD radio in stock. HD radio is all the rage! People are using them at work. ;D

Naah, it's not from the past, it's FROM THE FUTURE! (See, I got it right this time.) Internet radio won't die completely until SoundExchange has its way. Just ask the biggies of net radio. They're all saying it will be the death of them and Congress should intervene.

Even if Congress does issue a reprieve for net radio (unlikely) the technical issues I pointed out above will still exist. Think corporate America is going to subsidize net radio? Fat chance! Unlike analog and HD radio, its very life depends on borrowing someone else's infrastructure.

 

[vsa]

This is really weird. How did the post above from ten years ago make it into this thread?

He was right, of course. Internet radio was a fad, a flash-in-the-pan that died out in 1999. In the meantime, traditional radio has been going through a huge boom since that time. Stations are busy hiring, giving people huge raises, and profits are through the roof! Clear Channel should soon own at least 2,000 stations - business is so good. And of course, stores just can't keep these new HD radios in stock. I hear fights have broken out at Radio Shacks over the last Accurian HD radio in stock. HD radio is all the rage! People are using them at work.  ;D

Naah, it's not from the past, it's FROM THE FUTURE!  (See, I got it right this time.)  Internet radio won't die completely until SoundExchange has its way.  Just ask the biggies of net radio.  They're all saying it will be the death of them and Congress should intervene.

Even if Congress does issue a reprieve for net radio (unlikely) the technical issues I pointed out above will still exist.  Think corporate America is going to subsidize net radio?  Fat chance!  Unlike analog and HD radio, its very life depends on borrowing someone else's infrastructure.

Borrowing someone else's infrastructure? I guess that also makes Google a loser. Some would say that what you call a weakness is really Internet radio's strength.

Yep. You're absolutely right, Radioman100. HD radio has beaten Internet radio. It should be obvious to everyone.

Here's some food for thought:

From: Every radio station can become a TV station

http://iblnews.com/story_se.php?id=30506

"...Dan Mason, president of CBS Radio division has said: “For years we tried to figure out how to make the product compatible for the audience, but the issue was the platform, not the content. In the near future, every radio station will have the ability to become a TV station. We will see webcasts and webisodes. There’s no reason we can’t have our own webcast shows with talent. Radios will evolve and occupy more share of the digital space...”

Dan's a pretty sharp guy, or are you going to ridicule him too?

Oh yeah, Denon has decided to offer Wi-Fi radio too. No HD radio on this unit. Denon has mixed its audio expertise with all the functionality you could ask for to produce the SMART S-52 DAB wi-fi table radio.

http://techdigest.tv/2007/10/denon_launches_2.html

 

[Radioman100]

Yup, Dan is a pretty sharp guy. But you're overlooking the context of his statement. He's not saying the web will replace radio, he's saying it will be an enhancement for radio.

Unlike some pure web radio zealots, Dan probably has a good grasp on the benefits and limitations of the web.

Nothing in that statement leads me to believe Dan thinks webcasting will replace traditional radio. It's quite the opposite actually. If anything, that statement is Dan's view of how he's going to make the web a tool to enhance the terrestrial product. It's really not surprising that he has this vision. TV has been using the web to enhance their terrestrial broadcasts for a while now. Replace them? Of course not. You'd have to be insane to think video webcasts are going to bankrupt TV as we know it, just as you'd have to be nuts to think the same about radio.

As for Denon's web radio, they've made unsuccessful products before.

 

[vsa]

Yup, Dan is a pretty sharp guy. But you're overlooking the context of his statement. He's not saying the web will replace radio, he's saying it will be an enhancement for radio.

Unlike some pure web radio zealots, Dan probably has a good grasp on the benefits and limitations of the web.

Nothing in that statement leads me to believe Dan thinks webcasting will replace traditional radio. It's quite the opposite actually. If anything, that statement is Dan's view of how he's going to make the web a tool to enhance the terrestrial product. It's really not surprising that he has this vision. TV has been using the web to enhance their terrestrial broadcasts for a while now. Replace them? Of course not. You'd have to be insane to think video webcasts are going to bankrupt TV as we know it, just as you'd have to be nuts to think the same about radio.

As for Denon's web radio, they've made unsuccessful products before.

Dan Mason is talking about expanding CBS brands to gradually become Internet brands, because the web can do so much more. It can do it all. Over time, do you really think that people will compartmentalize their behavior - as in when they want to watch on their smartphone they'll go to the website, and when they decide to only listen that they'll then pull out a portable radio and put away that smartphone?

As for TV and videocasting, what do you think the Writers Guild in Hollywood is going out on strike over beginning Monday morning? The future. The Internet. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with DVDs.

By the way, at Fry's Electronics today in Los Angeles, I saw a BA Receptor HD on clearance for $89.95, marked down from $99.95, marked down from...

Same store, the regular price of the Roku Soundbridge M1001 (Wi-Fi radio) is now down to $129.95. The Roku Soundbridge Radio (AM/FM/Wi-Fi radio with built-in speakers) is now selling for $249.95.

 

[CW]

A- HD radio hiss jams more "stations between the stations" = Fewer Choices.

Got it.

DX station programming to someone far away & beyond it's service contour = GOOD
Local station programming to YOU with additional programming choices = BAD

A- Why make your weight an issue?
What does it have to do with HD radio?

If I was a "person of size" this might piss me off.
Then I consider the source.

Then I realize you probably don't even know...

It was an expression in the 60's. Try Wikipedia.

Clouseau

The term "heavy" was used in the 80s as well, not just the 60s.....(as one example; check out the "Back to the Future" movies...in the 50s, when Marty McFly says that, Doc Brown of the 50s answers with a "Weight has nothing to do with it"...yet in the 1985 original and anytime Doc Brown is shown from the 80s on, "Heavy" is a slang term he understands)

And to add my $.02, I am not a big fan of HD...I see AM HD dying; I just dont see it taking off and doing anything..AM Stereo had a better life (and still exists in some areas; I wish the FCC had not done the Reaganomnics thing and let "The marketplace decide") .....FM HD may survive but Ibiquity needs to stop charging the outrageous rates they do for licensing...but yet I walk into Circuit City or Best Buy and I see NO or maybe ONE HD radio....and it can't pick up anything...so why would anyone want to buy it? CDs and iPods will rule....(or my 80GB USB drive full of MP3s plugged into my laptop which is then played through the car stereo will...

(Yes, Virginia, I am an engineer...have an FCC license on the wall and went to college for EE; yet still love analog hifi AM

 

[CW]

Here's how internet radio works in the office: Surf to internet radio website. Enjoy. Use up TONS of bandwidth. A few days later, wonder where your stream has gone since it will no longer connect. Ask IT guy. Have fight with IT guy when he tells you he's blocked it and why. Have fight with IT guy. Get fired. Go looking for new job. Repeat process at new job.

Gimme a break. Audio uses next to nothing when it comes to bandwidth especially by modern standards. This isn't youtube.

Yep, I AM the IT guy at work and I stream a JACK station on my desktop @ less than 28kbs...(According to Speakeasy and my own LAN gear)...VoIP phones use more than that (anywhere from 40-90kbs depending on model, compression, etc)
I have a manager in another department question MY streaming....until he called MY boss...and my boss told him the facts...(after I showed my boss what they were I constantly have streaming audio at the house via my DSL..plus my Vonage service...and can still get download rates of several hundred kb/s......(well with a 3MB bandwidth, I aint complaining Even Youtube doesnt take up a LARGE amount....but multiply it by several HUNDRED users in some corps, and I can see IT clamping down....(yes, my corporate guys have Youtube and other such blocked...which is not an issue for me...I just want to listen to music)

 

[CW]

Funny. I'm writing this message from last year's HD Radio killer - the iPhone.

Not sure how that works, as I can't listen to any web radio on it.

You can cruise the net right?? All you need to do it go to any radio station stream site...and you're there!!
If you cant figure it out, send the phone to me...and I'll make sure it works ok...(and MAYBE return it to ya =

 

[Radioman100]

Dan Mason is talking about expanding CBS brands to gradually become Internet brands, because the web can do so much more. It can do it all. Over time, do you really think that people will compartmentalize their behavior - as in when they want to watch on their smartphone they'll go to the website, and when they decide to only listen that they'll then pull out a portable radio and put away that smartphone?

Well, the quote you provided certainly doesn't even hint of that, and knowing he's running a radio company with billions in radio assets that will continue to be worth billions for many, many years to come, I find it hard to believe THAT was his intention. People may wish to listen via smartphones, and radio is already there for them (if their cellular provider provides for it) but it seems far more likely that Dan was talking about enhancing the broadcast audio product with video on the web. What does "every radio station will have the ability to become a TV station" mean to you? To me, it seems he's talking about enhancements for the radio product like video blogs from the talent, video of morning show stunts, etc. being accessible from the web. Many savvy stations already do this. Perhaps CBS is getting ready to do it on a wider scale via corporate mandate. Often things like video blogs from the talent end up being pushed aside by local management unless they think they can monetize them. Maybe Dan is planning to cut out some of that BS for the greater good.

As for listening on smartphones, as of right now that's largely a pipe dream. I'm not sure about the other providers and their phones, but Apple and AT&T do everything they can to throttle the amount of bandwidth each iPhone uses. The most frequently it can check for e-mail on it own is every 15 minutes, and iTunes is only accessible on the phone when you're connected to a wi-fi network.

Do you think they do that because they want their customers to have a less than optimal experience? No. It's because the network to provide the bandwidth for these data services is simply not there yet.

By the way, at Fry's Electronics today in Los Angeles, I saw a BA Receptor HD on clearance for $89.95, marked down from $99.95, marked down from...

The display model here got down to $99 and change before it hit the door. I would have bought it myself, but it had received some rough handling, had a few scratches on its case and was missing some of its rubber feet.

 

[Radioman100]

Funny. I'm writing this message from last year's HD Radio killer - the iPhone.

Not sure how that works, as I can't listen to any web radio on it.

You can cruise the net right?? All you need to do it go to any radio station stream site...and you're there!!
If you cant figure it out, send the phone to me...and I'll make sure it works ok...(and MAYBE return it to ya =

Wish it could, but sadly it can't. First, it doesn't support Java, so many of the player apps don't work with it. It also doesn't support WMA, so you can't bypass the player app and plug the stream in directly. If you try, you get the message "Safari can't download this file."

I also tried it with a few MP3 streams. Same result. It may handle Quicktime streams, but I've yet to find any. If anyone wishes to provide an address for one, I'd be more than happy to try it and report back.

 

[vsa]

Dan Mason is talking about expanding CBS brands to gradually become Internet brands, because the web can do so much more. It can do it all. Over time, do you really think that  people will compartmentalize their behavior - as in when they want to watch on their smartphone they'll go to the website, and when they decide to only listen that they'll then pull out a portable radio and put away that smartphone?

Well, the quote you provided certainly doesn't even hint of that, and knowing he's running a radio company with billions in radio assets that will continue to be worth billions for many, many years to come, I find it hard to believe THAT was his intention.  People may wish to listen via smartphones, and radio is already there for them (if their cellular provider provides for it) but it seems far more likely that Dan was talking about enhancing the broadcast audio product with video on the web.  What does "every radio station will have the ability to become a TV station" mean to you?  To me, it seems he's talking about enhancements for the radio product like video blogs from the talent, video of morning show stunts, etc. being accessible from the web.  Many savvy stations already do this.  Perhaps CBS is getting ready to do it on a wider scale via corporate mandate.  Often things like video blogs from the talent end up being pushed aside by local management unless they think they can monetize them.  Maybe Dan is planning to cut out some of that BS for the greater good.

As for listening on smartphones, as of right now that's largely a pipe dream.  I'm not sure about the other providers and their phones, but Apple and AT&T do everything they can to throttle the amount of bandwidth each iPhone uses.  The most frequently it can check for e-mail on it own is every 15 minutes, and iTunes is only accessible on the phone when you're connected to a wi-fi network.

Do you think they do that because they want their customers to have a less than optimal experience?  No.  It's because the network to provide the bandwidth for these data services is simply not there yet.

By the way, at Fry's Electronics today in Los Angeles, I saw a BA Receptor HD on clearance for $89.95, marked down from $99.95, marked down from...

The display model here got down to $99 and change before it hit the door.  I would have bought it myself, but it had received some rough handling, had a few scratches on its case and was missing some of its rubber feet.

I supplied the article because it is publicly available evidence. You read it, viewing it through your preconceived notions. Check the iTunes radio tuner. You'll see most major CBS radio stations and others listed there within the last several months. Those links result in very little website traffic, but very high radio-like listening traffic. You know very little of what else is coming down the pike. For instance, a leading cell phone manufacturer has been laying the foundation to have a worldwide Internet radio service embedded in their products. Apple is also waiting before it enables streaming on their devices. You have no idea of the impending flood that will come once Mobile Wimax and competing wireless technologies provide the neccessary bandwidth.

Get ready to eat dust.


  

 

[Radioman100]

I supplied the article because it is publicly available evidence. You read it, viewing it through your preconceived notions.

Whatever. I read what the article SAYS. You're expanding it to meet your own agenda.

Check the iTunes radio tuner. You'll see most major CBS radio stations and others listed there within the last several months. Those links result in very little website traffic, but very high radio-like listening traffic. You know very little of what else is coming down the pike. For instance, a leading cell phone manufacturer has been laying the foundation to have a worldwide Internet radio service embedded in their products. Apple is also waiting before it enables streaming on their devices. You have no idea of the impending flood that will come once Mobile Wimax and competing wireless technologies provide the neccessary bandwidth.

Gotta love vaporware. From cell phone providers no less! When I can take and make CALLS reliably on cell phones, I'll start getting concerned. Until then, have fun dreaming!

Get ready to eat dust.

Get ready for me to laugh out loud at statements like this one again next year, just like this year. Last year's radio killer (iPhone) doesn't do streaming audio. Period. This year's radio killer (Ford Sync) doesn't allow you to listen to streaming audio, except through a bluetooth connection to a smart phone or iPod type device, and from everything I've read about it, it only allows you to play pre-recorded audio, not streaming internet radio. Remember all the neat things people were predicting it would do?

I can hardly wait for next year's vaporware! Oh wait, yes I can!

Last year's reality, actually reality from TWO YEARS AGO: Sirius Music on Sprint Power Vision phones! Damn it, that SHOULD HAVE KILLED RADIO BY NOW!

Question: Has anyone EVER seen ANYONE walking around listening to the radio on their cell phone? I owned a Sprint Power Vision capable phone for two years, and it NEVER ONCE occurred to me that I should plug a cord into it and connect it to my car stereo, though I apparently could have!

 

[dbdigital]

Yup, Dan is a pretty sharp guy. But you're overlooking the context of his statement. He's not saying the web will replace radio, he's saying it will be an enhancement for radio.

Unlike some pure web radio zealots, Dan probably has a good grasp on the benefits and limitations of the web.

Nothing in that statement leads me to believe Dan thinks webcasting will replace traditional radio. It's quite the opposite actually. If anything, that statement is Dan's view of how he's going to make the web a tool to enhance the terrestrial product. It's really not surprising that he has this vision. TV has been using the web to enhance their terrestrial broadcasts for a while now. Replace them? Of course not. You'd have to be insane to think video webcasts are going to bankrupt TV as we know it, just as you'd have to be nuts to think the same about radio.

As for Denon's web radio, they've made unsuccessful products before.

Dan Mason is talking about expanding CBS brands to gradually become Internet brands, because the web can do so much more. It can do it all. Over time, do you really think that people will compartmentalize their behavior - as in when they want to watch on their smartphone they'll go to the website, and when they decide to only listen that they'll then pull out a portable radio and put away that smartphone?

As for TV and videocasting, what do you think the Writers Guild in Hollywood is going out on strike over beginning Monday morning? The future. The Internet. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with DVDs.

By the way, at Fry's Electronics today in Los Angeles, I saw a BA Receptor HD on clearance for $89.95, marked down from $99.95, marked down from...

Same store, the regular price of the Roku Soundbridge M1001 (Wi-Fi radio) is now down to $129.95. The Roku Soundbridge Radio (AM/FM/Wi-Fi radio with built-in speakers) is now selling for $249.95.

This agrees with a recent interview Mark Ramsey conducted with Anna D'Agrosa, a marketing researcher with the Zandl Group. In discussing radio listening and young adults, she indicated that it is up among this group. But when pressed to define radio, Ms. D'Agrosa said that for young people, radio takes in satellite, internet and even iPod use in addition to terrestrial.

This fluid definition of what constitutes "radio" will only increase in time.

BTW, when discussing HD Radio, Ms. D'Agrosa said that the recognition factor among young listeners is nil. This tells me that for HD Radio to survive it's going to have to be liberally licensed (with generous terms to CE manufacturers) and begin show up in products with little fanfare. Apparently young listeners just don't care about the technology as much as they care about what they are listening to.

db

 

[Radioman100]

This agrees with a recent interview Mark Ramsey conducted with Anna D'Agrosa, a marketing researcher with the Zandl Group. In discussing radio listening and young adults, she indicated that it is up among this group. But when pressed to define radio, Ms. D'Agrosa said that for young people, radio takes in satellite, internet and even iPod use in addition to terrestrial.

This fluid definition of what constitutes "radio" will only increase in time.

BTW, when discussing HD Radio, Ms. D'Agrosa said that the recognition factor among young listeners is nil. This tells me that for HD Radio to survive it's going to have to be liberally licensed (with generous terms to CE manufacturers) and begin show up in products with little fanfare. Apparently young listeners just don't care about the technology as much as they care about what they are listening to.

db

And yet terrestrial radio remains king, and its popularity is apparently even growing among young adults.

Z100 New York - #1 12+

KIIS Los Angeles - #1 English speaking 12+

KHKS Dallas - #3 12+

KRBE Houston - #1 12+

And those numbers say nothing of urban and alternative stations that also do well in those markets and attract significant young adult listenership.