WiMax the best way for broadcasters to get their (HD) programming into cars?

[Chuck]

I think satellite radio has a lot more to fear from Wi-Fi than does traditional terrestrial radio.

 

[vsa]

If either XM or Sirius were doing that well, they wouldn't be seeking merger. The numbers these companies quote include new car sales. In other words the free three month subscriptions. Both satellite companies are in serious (not a pun) trouble. I know of more than a few ex sat employees who have jumped ship before they are fired should the merger be approved. Satellite has been on the market for over 7 years and neither ne is anywhere near breaking even. They are bleeding a great deal of money with no sign of it ending anytime soon. That 350,000 units mentioned is up from 45,000 or so sold the year before. It amazes me that that little tidbit was left out of the argument. Hey, I have a satellite radio in my car, but guess what, I didn't buy a satellite radio, I bought a car which came with this device (and which I chose not to renew my subscription to keep said device operating). As to the rest of his artical and opinion may I quote Aerosmith when I say, Dream On.

Satellite radio is your so-called bridge between traditional radio and ubiquitous Internet radio - NOT HD RADIO. Still, satrad will be severely challenged in the years to come. Perhaps, if it further expands its Internet presence it may live on.

Since you're in NYC, have you seen this Internet radio story done by WCBS-TV? It's "'Hooah Internet Radio" catching the ears of our troops overseas:

http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/hooah.internet.radio.2.655159.html

Our troops in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf area are listening to Internet radio, and not just Hooah!

 

[R.F. Burns]

The reason the troups love internet radio is because they can hear radio from home. The troups are in an unusual position. Radio doesn't surrvive on distant listeners. It needs a local audience to be profitable. On another note, current terrestrial radio is free. People have proven to be unwiling to pay for radio,. What makes you think that will change? Unless Wi-Fi is free it will always take second place to free over the air broadcasting.

 

[vsa]

The reason the troups love internet radio is because they can hear radio from home. The troups are in an unusual position. Radio doesn't surrvive on distant listeners. It needs a local audience to be profitable. On another note, current terrestrial radio is free. People have proven to be unwiling to pay for radio,. What makes you think that will change? Unless Wi-Fi is free it will always take second place to free over the air broadcasting.

Traditional radio isn't free either. You have to buy a car or truck if you want to listen while driving. Elsewhere, you have to buy an actual radio. Then you have to pay the utility company just to power it, or you have to keep buying expensive batteries.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

 

[R.F. Burns]

All well and good but be honest here. Where is that additional 10, 12 or more dollar monthly bill when it comes to terrestrial radio. Everybody weants a piece of my paycheck. Problem is that satelite radio arrived late to the picnic.

 

[LinoNYC]

The reason the troups love internet radio is because they can hear radio from home. The troups are in an unusual position. Radio doesn't surrvive on distant listeners. It needs a local audience to be profitable. On another note, current terrestrial radio is free. People have proven to be unwiling to pay for radio,. What makes you think that will change? Unless Wi-Fi is free it will always take second place to free over the air broadcasting.

Traditional radio isn't free either. You have to buy a car or truck if you want to listen while driving. Elsewhere, you have to buy an actual radio. Then you have to pay the utility company just to power it, or you have to keep buying expensive batteries.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

This is the "HD Radio Board".

Has it occured to you how rude it is to come here touting technologies that are irrelevant -not to the wider subject of radio, but irrelevant this topic, and then call people's arguments "stupid".

We are not unaware of these technologies, some of us have made large sums anticipating popular trends while tempering our enthusiasm with reality.

Los Angeles is not New York City -where I live. In fact there is little similarity in topography or infrastructure. Here as in many other dense, older cities there are few public wifi hotspots their range is less than a city block. WIMax is years away and due to the complexity of implementation here is unlikely to be free or have the kind of coverage and reliabilty that radio offers. I expect that when it does come it will be rather expensive because of the buildout cost and heavy bandwidth required.


As I have stated, too many times, the danger to traditional radio is not other forms of pre-programmed media, it's personal choice which is offered by MP3 players.

LIno

 

[vsa]

The reason the troups love internet radio is because they can hear radio from home. The troups are in an unusual position. Radio doesn't surrvive on distant listeners. It needs a local audience to be profitable. On another note, current terrestrial radio is free. People have proven to be unwiling to pay for radio,. What makes you think that will change? Unless Wi-Fi is free it will always take second place to free over the air broadcasting.

Traditional radio isn't free either. You have to buy a car or truck if you want to listen while driving. Elsewhere, you have to buy an actual radio. Then you have to pay the utility company just to power it, or you have to keep buying expensive batteries.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

This is the "HD Radio Board".

Has it occured to you how rude it is to come here touting technologies that are irrelevant -not to the wider subject of radio, but irrelevant this topic, and then call people's arguments "stupid".

We are not unaware of these technologies, some of us have made large sums anticipating popular trends while tempering our enthusiasm  with reality.

Los Angeles is not New York City -where I live. In fact there is little similarity in topography or infrastructure.  Here as in many other dense, older cities there are few public wifi hotspots their range is less than a city block. WIMax is years away and due to the complexity of implementation here is unlikely to be free or have the kind of coverage and reliabilty that radio offers.  I expect that when it does come it will be rather expensive because of the buildout cost and heavy bandwidth required.


As I have stated, too  many times, the danger to traditional radio is not other forms of pre-programmed media, it's personal choice which is offered by MP3 players.

LIno

Lino,

I'll agree with you in that I'm listening to my mp3 player right now as it plays my favorite several-hour-long weekly financial news, interview and commentary program that is not available on traditional radio. The quality of the content is better and the production values are at least as good as any I've heard anywhere. And it's free.

I'm sure there were lots of people on the Titanic that thought it was rude that someone was interrupting the enjoyment of their trip with talk about some silly irrelevant iceberg. You may think I'm rude, but I also think anyone who is pushing this HD radio crap is also rude - so rude that they take pride in selfishly using their neighbor's frequencies while paying lipservice at best about anyone being inconvenienced or being put out of business.

Of all the people I know and talk to, and a lot of them work in radio, not a single person has personally purchased an HD radio. Not one. It is deader than dead.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Another NY AM station is broadcasting in HD, WQEW. It's a radio Disney operation. Guess they didn't get the memo proclaiming that HD radio is dead.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Another NY AM station is broadcasting in HD, WQEW. It's a radio Disney operation. Guess they didn't get the memo proclaiming that HD radio is dead.

Just as "a needle in a haystack", the memo that "HD radio is dead" seems to have gotten lost, by some, while issuing mountains of pink slips necessitated by the extra expense and world of self delusion created by this HD radio fiasco.

 

[vsa]

Another NY AM station is broadcasting in HD, WQEW. It's a radio Disney operation. Guess they didn't get the memo proclaiming that HD radio is dead.

And this proves what? That Radio Disney also knows how to waste money? Nobody is buying the radios!

Tell Lino that I'm banging my head against the wall after reading this news. It's the only way I've been able to stop laughing.

 

[LinoNYC]

Another NY AM station is broadcasting in HD, WQEW. It's a radio Disney operation. Guess they didn't get the memo proclaiming that HD radio is dead.

And this proves what? That Radio Disney also knows how to waste money? Nobody is buying the radios!

Tell Lino that I'm banging my head against the wall after reading this news. It's the only way I've been able to stop laughing.

AH-HA! I knew it VOD..I mean VSA.

In kind, you gave me a good laugh with this line: Satellite radio is your so-called bridge between traditional radio and ubiquitous Internet radio - NOT HD RADIO.

"ubiquitous" -within the confines of my apartment, a public library or Starbuck's.

Keep em' coming

Love, Lino

 

[vsa]

Another NY AM station is broadcasting in HD, WQEW. It's a radio Disney operation. Guess they didn't get the memo proclaiming that HD radio is dead.

And this proves what? That Radio Disney also knows how to waste money? Nobody is buying the radios!

Tell Lino that I'm banging my head against the wall after reading this news. It's the only way I've been able to stop laughing.

AH-HA! I knew it VOD..I mean VSA.

In kind, you gave me a good laugh with this line: Satellite radio is your so-called bridge between traditional radio and ubiquitous Internet radio - NOT HD RADIO.

"ubiquitous" -within the confines of my apartment, a public library or Starbuck's.

Keep em' coming

Love, Lino

VOD?

Internet radio is BECOMING ubiquitous. Leaps and bounds faster than HD radio. And without any kind of "alliance."

 

[dbdigital]

If either XM or Sirius were doing that well, they wouldn't be seeking merger. The numbers these companies quote include new car sales. In other words the free three month subscriptions. Both satellite companies are in serious (not a pun) trouble. I know of more than a few ex sat employees who have jumped ship before they are fired should the merger be approved. Satellite has been on the market for over 7 years and neither ne is anywhere near breaking even. They are bleeding a great deal of money with no sign of it ending anytime soon. That 350,000 units mentioned is up from 45,000 or so sold the year before. It amazes me that that little tidbit was left out of the argument. Hey, I have a satellite radio in my car, but guess what, I didn't buy a satellite radio, I bought a car which came with this device (and which I chose not to renew my subscription to keep said device operating). As to the rest of his artical and opinion may I quote Aerosmith when I say, Dream On.

The point is not how well satcasters are doing. The stats I referenced clearly show just how badly HD Radio is doing even against something as losing as satellite radio. And that extra 45,000 units is just a spit in the ocean by comparison.

395,000 units sold in the last 4-5 years is terrible by any standards. In contrast, last year Apple sold 3.7 million iPhones. This is obviously where all things radio are heading; WiMax and a smartphone.

You talk about how people can have HD Radio today. However, the real "today" as far as the public is concerned is that they can happily listen to analog radio today, right now and not be burdened with the unnecessary, redundant expense of a digital radio.

And while listening to their analog radios today, right now, they can gear up for the next generation, namely, WiMax and a smartphone where, for a modest monthly fee, they can listen to whatever type of music or talk radio suits their taste, use the internet, chat, text message, etc.

The beauty of this for broadcasters is that they are the ones who will benefit most from internet radio. Statistics show that internet-only radio is flat right now (no doubt due to the royalty rates) but internet listening of terrestrial stations is growing.

This is only going to get better for broadcasters as portable internet use grows. But if you think HD Radio's dismal sales figures will magically inverse to millions within a year or two, you're the one who's dreaming.

db

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Los Angeles is not New York City -where I live. In fact there is little similarity in topography or infrastructure. Here as in many other dense, older cities there are few public wifi hotspots their range is less than a city block. WIMax is years away and due to the complexity of implementation here is unlikely to be free or have the kind of coverage and reliabilty that radio offers. I expect that when it does come it will be rather expensive because of the buildout cost and heavy bandwidth required.

You are forgetting internet enabled cell phones. Virtually all high end cell phones now have internet access. For a flat $20 fee a month, my daughter does all the web browsing she wants. It wouldn't take much to put automated streaming ability into the phones with an FM modulator. Then - you have streaming audio in cars, with a network that is already built out in almost all cities and towns, and along major highways as well. Forget Wimax - cell phones are the real distribution for streaming in the coming years.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Los Angeles is not New York City -where I live. In fact there is little similarity in topography or infrastructure. Here as in many other dense, older cities there are few public wifi hotspots their range is less than a city block. WIMax is years away and due to the complexity of implementation here is unlikely to be free or have the kind of coverage and reliabilty that radio offers. I expect that when it does come it will be rather expensive because of the buildout cost and heavy bandwidth required.

You are forgetting internet enabled cell phones. Virtually all high end cell phones now have internet access. For a flat $20 fee a month, my daughter does all the web browsing she wants. It wouldn't take much to put automated streaming ability into the phones with an FM modulator. Then - you have streaming audio in cars, with a network that is already built out in almost all cities and towns, and along major highways as well. Forget Wimax - cell phones are the real distribution for streaming in the coming years.

People have already shown they don't want to pay a subscription fee for radio. Why do you think it would be any different when it comes to Wi-Fi access?

 

[vsa]

Los Angeles is not New York City -where I live. In fact there is little similarity in topography or infrastructure.  Here as in many other dense, older cities there are few public wifi hotspots their range is less than a city block. WIMax is years away and due to the complexity of implementation here is unlikely to be free or have the kind of coverage and reliabilty that radio offers.  I expect that when it does come it will be rather expensive because of the buildout cost and heavy bandwidth required.

You are forgetting internet enabled cell phones.  Virtually all high end cell phones now have internet access.  For a flat $20 fee a month, my daughter does all the web browsing she wants.  It wouldn't take much to put automated streaming ability into the phones with an FM modulator.  Then - you have streaming audio in cars, with a network that is already built out in almost all cities and towns, and along major highways as well.  Forget Wimax - cell phones are the real distribution for streaming in the coming years.

People have already shown they don't want to pay a subscription fee for radio. Why do you think it would be any different when it comes to Wi-Fi access?

For the 10,000th time, people have shown that they are willing to pay for Internet access, wired and wireless. The fact that they are also able to listen to Internet radio is an added (free) BONUS!!!

For the 10,001st time, people have shown that they are willing to pay for Internet access, wired and wireless. The fact that they are also able to listen to Internet radio is an added (free) BONUS!!!

For the 10,002nd time, people have shown that they are willing to pay for Internet access, wired and wireless. The fact that they are also able to listen to Internet radio is an added (free) BONUS!!!

For the 10,003rd time, people have shown that they are willing to pay for Internet access, wired and wireless. The fact that they are also able to listen to Internet radio is an added (free) BONUS!!!

For the 10,004th time, people have shown that they are willing to pay for Internet access, wired and wireless. The fact that they are also able to listen to Internet radio is an added (free) BONUS!!!

Get it yet???

 

[R.F. Burns]

So what you are saying is that my monthly 50$ internet bill won't go up to pay for all of the wi-fi repeaters and I can use the same subscription for maybe 5 or 10 different internet devices all over the United States all for 50$ a month? Word hasn't gotten to my ISP. They initially wanted to charge me per computer used. They didn't want me to use a wireless router. If you can find a ISP for me which covers my area (we don't yet have DSL or VIOS and my neighborhood is 20 years old with underground wiring -Thanks Verizon) and allows all of those things for 50$, let me now and I'll sign up right away. I got it, I don't think you do. I'm living in 2008 not 2018.

 

[Chuck]

So what you are saying is that my monthly 50$ internet bill won't go up to pay for all of the wi-fi repeaters and I can use the same subscription for maybe 5 or 10 different internet devices all over the United States all for 50$ a month? Word hasn't gotten to my ISP. They initially wanted to charge me per computer used. They didn't want me to use a wireless router. If you can find a ISP for me which covers my area (we don't yet have DSL or VIOS and my neighborhood is 20 years old with underground wiring -Thanks Verizon) and allows all of those things for 50$, let me now and I'll sign up right away. I got it, I don't think you do. I'm living in 2008 not 2018.

I'm sorry things are so draconian in New York and Connecticut, but elsewhere wireless routers are pretty much the norm. I've have one Internet Service Provider account, which is shared by ten computers and two wireless PDA's and a Roku Internet radio. The connection is shared between my home and my office, which are co-located, about 300 feet away. I have a wireless access point in the house and a wireless access point at the office/ radio studio They are connected by a run of CAT 5 cable. It works fine. Most of the computers are hard wired to a router, but three of them are wireless. All this stuff works fine, and it isn't uncommon for multiple computers to be on line at the same time. In fact, it is unusual if they aren't. My ISP (which is also wireless) seems perfectly happy with the arrangement. They are fully aware of what I have connected. I also pay about half what you are paying.

I do have a secondary wireless access card that I got from my cell phone company. It is priced at "New York Rates" but I use it when I travel. It also works fine in my home or office. (Did I mention I live in what most people would consider a “rural” area?) The cell phone connection is cheaper than paying $9.95 in a hotel or airport to collect my email. I also use it for remote broadcast purposes on my radio station. It works pretty well and is a lot easier than carrying a Marti unit around. It also sounds a lot better than a dial up phone, so it justifies itself. You might not need one, but the option is there.

Even that additional cell phone Internet card may be overkill. I can get wireless Internet on my regular cell phone for an additional $20 a month. With an adapter cable, I can plug it into my laptop. The reason I went with the separate card was so I could use the cell phone at the same time. If I really wanted to save money, I could use Skype, but I was going for convenience over price. I suspect that others do too.

More and more, the places I go have free Internet. Some hotels haven't gotten the message yet, but a lot of them have. Same goes for airports. As a frequent flyer, places like American Airlines Admiral's Clubs have free Wi-Fi. Some airports like Chicago’s O’Hare, want you to pay in the public areas, but quite a few have free wi-fi for everyone in the terminal. It seems it is getting easier and easier to find a place to log on at little or no cost.

The point is not to berate your Internet connection, but to point out that things are changing very quickly. The prices seem to be going down, and the service level is going up.

 

[LinoNYC]

You are forgetting internet enabled cell phones. Virtually all high end cell phones now have internet access. For a flat $20 fee a month, my daughter does all the web browsing she wants. It wouldn't take much to put automated streaming ability into the phones with an FM modulator. Then - you have streaming audio in cars, with a network that is already built out in almost all cities and towns, and along major highways as well. Forget Wimax - cell phones are the real distribution for streaming in the coming years.

It's true, I hadn't considered cell tech, probably due to my experience with "data plans" and cost.

That's really an issue here, the average voice bitrate is around 9k (and sounds it) and the requirements for loading a burst of data for displaying a tiny webpage on a phone is not comparable to the sustained large stream needed for decent audio.

This sort of service is do-able but it I doubt it would be as cheap as limited web access.

THe way I and my friends who are alot younger than I find new music and video is through a combination of networking with each other and external inputs from OTA radio, Youtube. We send these files amongst each other and/or point out media of interest. While I regularly listen to a station from Thailand (friend works there) for most people internet radio isn't really that important, it's just one input that we use to find new music and then move on and download it.

It's amusing to think the "big threat" to one form of pre-programmed media (OTA radio) is essentially the same thing delivered by different means.


Lino

 

[Chuck]

It's amusing to think the "big threat" to one form of pre-programmed media (OTA radio) is essentially the same thing delivered by different means.


Lino

Actually, that has been the point of several of my posts. Broadcasters need to think of themselves as content providers and not just licensees that occupy a specific piece of bandwidth. Listeners aren't really concerned with the nuts and bolts of how they get a particular program. The delivery method could be analog AM or FM, HD, Internet, satellite, podcast, cell phone Wi-Fi, Wi-Max or whatever is next. They really don't care. If the technology gets in the way of receiving a program, then they simply go to another choice. There are lots of them. All they care about is if it is something they actually want to listen to.

Sorry, we are letting technology cloud the basic issue.