"Wireless for everyone"

[doctorcomputer3]

Wireless for everyone was in the news this week and I thought it may be a good subject, concerning my project. It seems pertainent to people here. Are the radio people embracing or dreading the broadband coming to your cars? Is it possible that I could program Brother Wease in the Morning, Mid-days with My sh**, Give the Mic to Jerry Krause (Formerly of WOUR) in the afternoon then have deadhead Jay do overnights? Could we go back to Live 24/7 with a 10-2am shift at night? Sure would enjoy hearing the original Club Beat at night. Howard Stern in the Morning? The possibilities are endless and the Radio Business "Spin" is that they have "done this before" but guess what? Its not the fact that you have done it, It is WHO is doing it lol. Real people embrace products by real people. Not banks, not big corporations and todays corporate radio armed with their music playlists may be losing the battle, or not. Personally I hope everyone is safe that can be, but there are plenty that feel like theyve been screwed by the Radio Business, and the fcc may just be providing a new way for us to help ourselves.
How are you feeling about this?

 

[TheBigA]

The part folks forget is that a handful of companies own the wireless services. The ISPs are far more powerful than radio or media companies. They too are government regulated. If you think it's hard to deal with Clear Channel, wait til you have to fight Verizon. People complain how big radio is run by out-of-town owners, but the last time I battled Verizon, I got transfered to India! We're not talking New India either!

And the ISPs know they're powerful. They want to charge more for speed. That's the next battle. You might get free wireless, but it'll be like dial-up. If you want high speeds, you'll have to pay. The government thinks that's not fair. But who paid for all the broadband? The airwaves may belong to the people, but the broadband belongs to the telcoms. They still have the receipts.

It all comes down to those two famous words again: Who pays? If internet radio is ad-supported (and that's the current plan before the FCC), it'll probably duplicate what ad-supported terrestrial does. That's what you have now. Plus the big radio companies are investing heavily in internet radio. CBS now has its stations on both AOL and Yahoo. Then who will pay those incredible royalties the RIAA wants? Sure, the connection may be free, but the music has a huge royalty attached to it, and someone has to pay for it.

So I don't see this as the panacea everyone else expects.

 

[doctorcomputer3]

Personally I dont see how they can technically do it. Google had an idea of mounting antennas on weather balloons. Regulating the "free" bandwidth over the Verizon or Sprint network will give you about 56k per conncetion, youre right. The Idea is to get internet to the rural areas but I cant see how. Im still under the impression that people will be able to tune my 40k internet station in their cars, after the TV audio bandwidth frees up. Cant find the spell check in this forum.

 

[softmachine]

Google had an idea of mounting antennas on weather balloons.

This I gotta read. Link, please!

 

[doctorcomputer3]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120347353988378955.html?mod=blog

 

[Bob_Hudson]

I've been listening to internet radio in my car for more three years using a $30 a month Sprint data service on my Treo (first a P650, now a P700). I feed the audio through the car stereo system and if can sound very good. My old Treo 650 used slower speed data service and was a lot like a dial up connection, but the Treo 700 (which I also use as a portable broadband modem for my MacBook) uses Sprint's EVDO speed data service which can do DSL speeds.

 

[barman]

Like Bob Hudson said in the post above, wireless internet is available now but don't get the idea that it's free. It costs more than double of what satellite radio costs per month, but you do have access to nearly an infinite variety of services. So you can have terrestrial radio (free but tons of commercials and very limited selection), satellite radio ($6.99-$12.99 per month with other varying plans, 130+ channels of high programming quality, no commercials on the music channels), or wireless internet ($30 per month with an immense variety of choices, varying from lots of commercials on streaming terrestrial stations to no commercials on bedroom computer setups).

 

[TheBigA]

Like Bob Hudson said in the post above, wireless internet is available now but don't get the idea that it's free.

I expect that we will see the internet add more charges and more commercials as it becomes more popular. That's what cable TV did.

 

[Brooklyndon]

Then who will pay those incredible royalties the RIAA wants?

RIAA is dead in the water. Bands don't need them to promote or distribute records nymore largely due to radio degmentation and advances in technology. They'll still own the rights to all the classic stuff from the last forty years, but streaming stations are going to be the new promoters. It makes so much sense to vertically consolidate that I'm shocked CBS has yet to revive its A&R department.

 

[TheBigA]

They'll still own the rights to all the classic stuff from the last forty years, but streaming stations are going to be the new promoters.

The law still requires artists and publishers to get royalties. It may not go to major labels, but it still must be collected and disbursed. Now perhaps the idea of royalties is as antiquated as retirees getting pensions. But until the law gets changed, it is still a cost born by internet broadcasters, and has caused many to shut down.

I'm shocked CBS has yet to revive its A&R department.

They actually have. CBS Records was revived several years ago.

 

[Brooklyndon]

The law still requires artists and publishers to get royalties. It may not go to major labels, but it still must be collected and disbursed. Now perhaps the idea of royalties is as antiquated as retirees getting pensions. But until the law gets changed, it is still a cost born by internet broadcasters, and has caused many to shut down.

I'm shocked CBS has yet to revive its A&R department.

They actually have. CBS Records was revived several years ago.

Two years ago they had three artists, now they have seven. They own last.fm, why are they not out at every music hall in every city signing bands left and right? They can cut out RIAA and pay the artist higher royalties than they'd get from the record company while still paying less than they'd need to RIAA. Additionally, they'd get exclusivity over their artists, which would be a huge bargaining chip/competitive advantage. Streamers should take advantage too, if they sign the artists they play, then they negociate the royalty rate.

 

[TheBigA]

why are they not out at every music hall in every city signing bands left and right?

There's not much money in signing artists to recording contracts.

And music isn't built on exclusivity. It's built on being available everywhere.

It's all about money.

 

[Brooklyndon]

There's not much money in signing artists to recording contracts.

And music isn't built on exclusivity. It's built on being available everywhere.

It's all about money.

Right, RIAA as it stands now has no viable business model to grow in the fture.

Historically, their value added service was in marketing-specifically distribution. Artists needed the Record Companies' distribution network to sell product. Radio was a means of product promotion, which is why exclusivity was not part of the model.

Now any kid with an FTP server can put his MP3's up available for download anywhere, and if they are extremely enterprising, password protect the FTP site and use paypal to collect funds for a password to that FTP site. They can record a video and put it on their myspace page or on youtube. ITunes has a full indie store. So, where do the record companies fit in? What value do they add? The only value I can see their adding is in IP protection, but really a decent copyright lawyer and $200 can protect an entire album's worth of IP on mySpace and Google. So now what? They do nothing. No one buys music in stores anymore.

Wise media companies will realize this fact, give away the IP protections for free in exchange for the right to play music free. The artists keep the free promotions they always have and the media company has cut costs. This model is the business model for the future.

 

[TheBigA]

This model is the business model for the future.

For some people, I'm sure that's fine. They're quite happy playing to their personal legion of fans. But the musicians I know crave a lot more than having a few thousand rabid fans. They want worldwide acceptance of their music, and all the side benefits (the private jet, the big house, the groupies, and the lifestyle). And a lot of musicians get it through the old method. I really don't expect the new business model to create the kinds of superstars kids today grow up wanting to be. It will allow them to have an outlet for their work, reaching a network of disciples through social networks. That will allow them to perhaps make a living, if they can turn their music into money on the road. But a time will come when the hard ticket will also become as old fashioned as the CD.

 

[Brooklyndon]

They want worldwide acceptance of their music, and all the side benefits (the private jet, the big house, the groupies, and the lifestyle). And a lot of musicians get it through the old method.

Please explain to me how giving 90% of the royalties to the record company leads to side benefits?

Or is it that they make all their money touring?

 

[TheBigA]

Please explain to me how giving 90% of the royalties to the record company leads to side benefits?

Or is it that they make all their money touring?

They make their money:

1) Touring

2) Publishing

3) Being a celebrity, marketing their brand name, and other side businesses (book deals, etc)

All of the above are driven by non-stop traditional radio airplay.

They don't make money from the record deal. They make their money from the things the record deal provides.

 

[davideduardo]

Then who will pay those incredible royalties the RIAA wants?

RIAA is dead in the water. Bands don't need them to promote or distribute records nymore largely due to radio degmentation and advances in technology. They'll still own the rights to all the classic stuff from the last forty years, but streaming stations are going to be the new promoters.

The RIAA does none of those things you mention. The record companies that are members of RIAA do. The RIAA is a trade association, like the NAB or the AMA or ABA. The ABA does not practice law or sue people; its members do... but the ABA may lobby against tort reform or whatever they believe the member lawyers want them to do.

As has already been said, artists make most of their income touring and through other deals not related to recordings. And, to straigten out a statement, the RIAA does not get 90% of royalties. The artist and composers get royalties (labels also, but only for digital difusion). The 90% goes for the administration of the record company, recording studios (good ones.... some albums cost $1 million to produce) videos (may run several hundred thousand), product and distribution, press relations, promotion to the media, including ringers on social networks, etc. If anything is left over, the record companies keep it as profit (but not in recent years.... nobody makes money).