102.1 KAHM is charging A subscription fee of $20 monthly to listen to a live stream

102.1 KAHM Prescott is charging A subscription fee of $20 monthly to listen to a live stream.
should any commercial radio station Local or out of market have a fee (one time or monthly subscription) for LIVE Streaming?

Probably not illegal, but who would be fool enough to pay it?

KeithE4 said:

Probably not illegal, but who would be fool enough to pay it?

Click to expand...

Wealthy retirees who've moved away from Arizona and don't have a local beautiful music station to listen to? But then, there must be other stations somewhere in the streaming universe that are putting similar content on the internet for much less -- or for nothing, right?

Certainly not illegal and I wonder if that $20 a month even covers their fees for streaming. You pay for every listener in bandwidth and then you pay for every song you play at a rate per listener. The rates are many multiples what over the air radio deals with. If on air broadcasting was a $1,000 a month apartment, online stations would be paying $5,000 to get the same thing, all going to bandwidth and music licensing.

Beautiful music is an underserved market, but $20 a month is not going to net them many subscribers when one could get Sirius with web access for a much lower rate. They offered it free, but when Sirius briefly took Escape off, KAHM's bandwidth costs went through the roof and they stopped streaming.

KAHM has been charging a streaming fee for several years. Many naysayers said that
wouldn't last but it has. Reliable sources tell me that they do quite well with their
streaming and have many subscribers. Simply stated, no one is doing what KAHM does
with their music. That is why they have endured since 1981 basically playing the same
type of relaxing, soothing music........

The "Valley of the Sun" is a market full of retirees- seems to me they could do well getting their signal into Phoenix with a translator...

mapman1071 said:

should any commercial radio station Local or out of market have a fee (one time or monthly subscription) for LIVE Streaming?

Click to expand...

Streaming is expensive. The music industry requires a huge royalty fee for streaming stations, and it's killing bigger companies like Pandora & Spotify. A small local radio station can't afford to pay it. If they have a format like this, there are a lot of out-of-market listeners, so advertisers won't pay for it. It leads some stations to geo-fence the stream so it can only be heard in market. It's not unusual for small mom & pop stations to charge subscription fees for access to the stream.

b-turner said:

Certainly not illegal and I wonder if that $20 a month even covers their fees for streaming. You pay for every listener in bandwidth and then you pay for every song you play at a rate per listener. The rates are many multiples what over the air radio deals with. If on air broadcasting was a $1,000 a month apartment, online stations would be paying $5,000 to get the same thing, all going to bandwidth and music licensing.

Click to expand...

If that listener was connected 24x7x30, and with each hour having 18 performances at $0.0017 each and indeed, it's $22 per head per month. Extreme example to be sure, but if you have to pay someone to administer the stream and make sure people don't go over a certain number of streaming hours, say 360/month, $20 a month might be reasonable but I doubt it would be a profit center for most stations. Which brings to mind something else...

"Alexa, play 'Skate 108'."

(audio from Skate 108 stream) "Skate 108 says #*&! you! Turn on your radio! Or pay us $20 a month for the privilege of having Alexa find us for you..."

Someone needs to invent an "Alexa"-radio tuner interface so your personal assistant can source the audio from an on-air broadcast instead of a stream. Also, someone needs to start a "reverse-StreamLicensing" where listeners pay rSL .0022 per performance, then rSL pays the streaming entity. It's the only way on-demand streaming is going to pay, IMO.

umfan said:

Beautiful music is an underserved market, but $20 a month is not going to net them many subscribers when one could get Sirius with web access for a much lower rate. They offered it free, but when Sirius briefly took Escape off, KAHM's bandwidth costs went through the roof and they stopped streaming.

Click to expand...

Not only SiriusXM, but the major cable and satellite companies offer free music channels that have just about any type of music one can imagine.

joebtsflk1 said:

Someone needs to invent an "Alexa"-radio tuner interface so your personal assistant can source the audio from an on-air broadcast instead of a stream.

Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. Alexa is tied to the internet. It's a whole different device, with an antenna. That's the problem. The electronics industry has created an entire world that doesn't include broadcast. It's either internet or cable. It's a wired world.

joebtsflk1 said:

Also, someone needs to start a "reverse-StreamLicensing" where listeners pay rSL .0022 per performance, then rSL pays the streaming entity. It's the only way on-demand streaming is going to pay, IMO.

Click to expand...

That's a great idea, and the music industry would love it. They want to find a way to actually charge music lovers for consumption. But they don't want the bill to come from them. They want an intermediary. What they originally proposed was having a fee tagged on to the ISP. But the ISPs balked. Same with telcos.

TheBigA said:

Not gonna happen. Alexa is tied to the internet. It's a whole different device, with an antenna. That's the problem. The electronics industry has created an entire world that doesn't include broadcast. It's either internet or cable. It's a wired world.

Click to expand...

So, technically not impossible, just improbable given the biases against broadcast coupled with the general impotence in the broadcast industry.

TheBigA said:

That's a great idea, and the music industry would love it. They want to find a way to actually charge music lovers for consumption. But they don't want the bill to come from them. They want an intermediary. What they originally proposed was having a fee tagged on to the ISP. But the ISPs balked. Same with telcos.

Click to expand...

That intermediary might have to be established by the streaming industry. We all thought the Napster free lunch was going to last forever in '01, but it couldn't and it didn't.

joebtsflk1 said:

So, technically not impossible, just improbable given the biases against broadcast coupled with the general impotence in the broadcast industry.

Click to expand...

What would you like broadcasters to do, other than get back into the electronics manufacturing business?

I don't know about technical possibility, given the size of the device and the way it works.

joebtsflk1 said:

That intermediary might have to be established by the streaming industry. We all thought the Napster free lunch was going to last forever in '01, but it couldn't and it didn't.

Click to expand...

That would have to be approved by SoundExchange, because they are the agency set by law to collect music royalties. Right now, SoundExchange only collects its royalties directly from streamers, not consumers.

I have contacted KAHM about this service and the only downside is it does not configure with mobile devices

This one's done pretty well...thanks to the input of Marlin Taylor. And did I mention it's FREE?! http://jibontheweb.com

Often imitated but never duplicated, "The softer, soothing sound of KAHM,
Prescott, Arizona, USA." A veritable bargain at ONLY $20.00 per month.