It's just a matter of time...

K.M. Richards said:

We were talking about in-car streaming, until you changed the focus in order to declare my analogy invalid. If, as seems likely, radio is gradually replaced in the car with streaming, that "last mile" is going to be the one most highly competed for by all the vehicles using it.

Of course there will be an expansion of bandwidth, but the question becomes: Given the increased level of demand, can it be provided cheaply enough to become as ubiquitous as radio ... and in what timeframe? Keep in mind that the highest percentage of radio listening already takes place in the car and suddenly it's your "last mile inside the house" that becomes irrelevant to the question.

Click to expand...

Not irrelevant at all. The point is, the more WiFi access points along the highway, the less WiFi traffic that needs to travel through each access point to join the wired infrastructure. When using WiFi in your home there's very limited traffic through the short gateway to wired internet. Unless several families move into your home you're not likely to run out of bandwidth. And of course my main point was that a wired or fiber connection is not necessary to create a hotspot as you claimed in your retort to another poster. Any device with cell data can create a hotspot.

I know it's difficult to imagine the future scale of technology. In the early days of digital photography everyone (including me) thought it had its place but would never replace film in terms of quality. Reliable, seamless WiFi in cars and everywhere else will be reality before long, and may even replace cell service. I can't wait!

K.M. Richards said:

Keep in mind that the highest percentage of radio listening already takes place in the car

Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't. Right, David?

DavidEduardo said:

In home, at work and in the car are traditionally about equal, but with the declining presence of radio receivers, in home and at work will likely decline.

Click to expand...

That couldn't be good news for radio, could it? Yes, there are many who work in our nation's megalopolises who have monster commutes and spend 4+ hours a day in the car, but isn't the average American's commute only 30-60 minutes or so each way? That's not a lot of listening, especially if they don't have a radio at home and aren't using or allowed to use one at work.

CTListener said:

That couldn't be good news for radio, could it?

Click to expand...

What do you suggest?

CTListener said:

That couldn't be good news for radio, could it? Yes, there are many who work in our nation's megalopolises who have monster commutes and spend 4+ hours a day in the car, but isn't the average American's commute only 30-60 minutes or so each way? That's not a lot of listening, especially if they don't have a radio at home and aren't using or allowed to use one at work.

Click to expand...

Here's a scary thought for "wadio" to consider ... that's not good news for the prospect of building more Wi-Fi infrastructure for in-car streaming, either, especially when you start wondering who will pay for it all.

As for broadcast radio, no doubt we will adapt again to the changing listening model. When WEAF ran that first paid commercial back on August 28, 1922, those who thought radio was to be a free source of highbrow music and polite talks were horrified and said "no one will listen to the radio if it has commercial announcements!" When network programming began to homogenize the schedules of radio nationwide, people said "no one will listen to programs originating from New York when there is talent in their own local communities!" When television arrived and network programming went visual, people said "this will surely be the death of radio, because no one will listen when they can watch TV!" When radio formats started to sound much the same in every market, people predicted that would drive the vast majority of listeners away. They said the same when radio formats that skewed older in average audience age than the ad agencies and their clients wanted to advertise to, that was supposed to be the death knell. Portable music players (first the Walkman, then the Rio, then the iPod, etc., etc.) were supposed to reduce radio's audience to the point where it would go off the air forever. Now you're saying the same thing because listening other than in the car is lessening.

Radio adapted to all of the above and is still on the air almost 94 years after that first commercial was supposed to be the beginning of the end. I'll bet on our side, thank you very much.

K.M. Richards said:

Here's a scary thought for "wadio" to consider ... that's not good news for the prospect of building more Wi-Fi infrastructure for in-car streaming, either, especially when you start wondering who will pay for it all.

Click to expand...

Wow, what a narrow view! Are you suggesting that audio streaming is the only use for WiFi in a car? That's really thinking inside the box.

wadio said:

Are you suggesting that audio streaming is the only use for WiFi in a car?

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, audio streaming or the use of internet radio is near the bottom of why consumers want wifi in cars. Higher priorities are for MapQuest, email, and video chatting with friends. If you've seen the Buick ad on TV, the main advantage they're promoting is video chat with the office. "Who wants smoothies?"

Wifi in cars will make subscriptions to GPS services unnecessary. In fact, I'm often asked if I want to rent a GPS when I rent cars, and I have no need, since I have one built into my iPhone. With wifi, that service is obsolete.

wadio said:

The point is, the more WiFi access points along the highway, the less WiFi traffic that needs to travel through each access point to join the wired infrastructure.

Click to expand...

The thing you forget is that someone has to pay for this. It's taken years and billions of dollars for telecom companies to build their infrastructure, and they expect return on that investment. They're not going to allow free wifi on their network. Lots of cities and even the federal government have talked about making wifi available, and the brick wall they keep hitting is the telecom companies who want to get paid.

There was a time not long ago when there was free wifi in airports. A couple years ago, companies like Boingo shut that down, and now most airports only allow a half hour of free wifi, and you have to sit through video ads to get it. I expect that to become more prevalent. Everybody wants to get paid. Of course, AT&T and other companies offer floating plans that allow you to access their hotspots in airports and other public places for a price. If you're the one paying, do you want to pay for everyone else's wifi access? Do you want others to see your data on an unsecured connection? Those are questions you'll need to ask.

wadio said:

Wow, what a narrow view! Are you suggesting that audio streaming is the only use for WiFi in a car? That's really thinking inside the box.

Click to expand...

No, but once again you are trying to win the argument by shifting your point of view. If you say "WiFi in the car is going to replace broadcast radio" and I respond with that statement in mind, it is patently unfair for you to then call my view "narrow" when all I did was to focus directly on what you said when I replied.

TheBigA said:

From what I've seen, audio streaming or the use of internet radio is near the bottom of why consumers want wifi in cars. Higher priorities are for MapQuest, email, and video chatting with friends.

Click to expand...

Which, of course, underscores that even if WiFi is somehow built and paid for, the usage (demand) will overwhelm the capacity (supply), which is what I've been trying to say all along, despite "wadio" constantly muddying the waters by his replies.

frankberry said:

Video chatting with friends while driving?
Who is going to watch the road?

Click to expand...

The example the Buick ad shows has the car stopped. I know for me, I spend a lot of time in my car as a moving office. It's not unusual that I'll come to a stop to use my table or phone for business. But of course passengers are free to watch videos or chat, with the screen in the back seat. It's easy to make the dash screen usable only when the car is parked.

A couple of things:

Who said anything about paying for other people's WiFi? My ISP provides hotspots. I pay for that.

When people post inaccurate information about technology it's fair to call them on it, especially if they're incorrectly trying to correct someone else!

wadio said:

Who said anything about paying for other people's WiFi? My ISP provides hotspots. I pay for that

Click to expand...

I have elected not to pay AT&T the extra fee. So I can't use their hotspots, even though I'm an AT&T customer. When I'm at an airport, I see unsecured wifi hotspots from people's phones. I don't access them. But they exist.

frankberry said:

Video chatting with friends while driving?
Who is going to watch the road?

Click to expand...

It will be a Google driverless car.

wadio said:

When people post inaccurate information about technology it's fair to call them on it, especially if they're incorrectly trying to correct someone else!

Click to expand...

I've had enough of you shifting focus and conveniently leaving something out of your posts so you can pounce on the replier for getting something "wrong" which you never addressed.

I'm done with this thread, and with you.

Whoa whoa whoa no need to heat it that way guys. We are discussing something interesting here, the future of our passion and for many of us our careers. Nothing more, nothing else.

Broadcast radio has survived through the years and through all kinds of experiments (radio on TV, stereo AM, studios in shopping malls, automation..) I mean, ALL kinds of thigs, and there it is. Try to go buy a station. It's worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Doesn't sound like a dead industry for me. It will have to adapt? Yes. Did this happen before? Yes.

A vehicle without a radio, be it FM or AM, is a vehicle that I will not buy...........