When do the required patent payments come off HD? Then someone will develop CHEAP chip or add the software to and existing chip set. I don't know the percentages but a lot of folks will not "pay" for content. OTA digital for free would be an attraction. Not data useage, or WIFI hassles.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Future of AM
- Thread starter b-turner
- Start date
When do the required patent payments come off HD? Then someone will develop CHEAP chip or add the software to and existing chip set. I don't know the percentages but a lot of folks will not "pay" for content. OTA digital for free would be an attraction. Not data useage, or WIFI hassles.
The Ibquity use fees technically never end as long as you use their method of transmission. That doesn't mean that stations wouldn't be able to renegotiate the fees down the road, but keep in mind that those fees aren't really that much as compared with other costs stations face.
Broadcasters made the mistake of assuming that consumers care about digital things back in the 90's and why the push for IBOC by some group owners. Ironically but not surprising, consumers don't care about that sort of thing. For radio, it's familiar music that listeners really care about. If it comes at no cost, even better.
Doesn't matter whether cellular phone service, IP streaming, or whatever, digital encoding/decoding gives you the ability to get 50 gallons of (choose your descriptor) into a two gallon bucket, with reduced noise artifacts than analog. Full stop.
After reading through this thread it I gather that FM is limited (population will still increase but the spectrum is already crowded and limited as it is now), AM is dying, and the future eventually will be pay-to-play for everything we presently get over-the-air: via paywalls on digital/online radio. Unless streaming royalties get reduced to zero.
Which isn't going to happen. Instead, every few years, they increase. This has become the new revenue stream for record labels. Without streaming royalties, they would be deader than AM.
If music radio is going the paywall route it better rediscover an entertaining way of presentation because that art has almost completely disappeared.
For the generations that followed you, that 60's and 70's style of presentation is not an art but an obstruction to enjoying music.
In any case, we are not talking about something that will happen tomorrow. There are years and years of life in traditional radio stations, and even more if there is a profitable transition to other delivery methods. The current issue is that delivering content via streams is vastly more expensive than delivering it over the air.
You are making assumptions again. I did not specify WHAT the entertaining method(s) might be, just that there will have to be something other than what is generally on air now. But for the record I too was not a big fan of time-temp-blabber radio either. I do like some personality with my music though and calling the majority of DJ's "personalities" now days is a big misnomer. It isn't that they don't have the talent but rather are not allowed to use it.
And I was specifically talking about OTA radio. Delivery via other methods is not radio. But to ask a question.....how is having a data stream and a PC in my basement feeding it any more expensive than building an entire studio, staff, STA and antenna structure? The only obstacle I can think of relates to the music royalties and that can be changed in a heartbeat with enough "consideration" to the appropriate bandit......er, politicians. Technology breeds chaos and they's a big storm a-brewing!
What is on the air now for OTA radio will not go behind a paywall. The FCC forbids AM & FM stations from doing that. I actually checked into it once. It is against the law.
What is going behind paywalls is streaming radio. And there typically aren't personalities there. At least not what you're used to. So they're charging you basically to listen to music. That's about it.
You are a member of the o.oooo1% percent who thinks that. To the average listener, if it has no picture and is not a pure-play stream, it's radio. Folks, in even a majority still, consider streamers like Pandora to be radio.
And to a huge percentage, a smart phone contains a "radio".
True for Millennials, true for Gen X and even true for many Boomers. For example, we have an Echo device and my SO, when she asks Alexa to put on music, considers it to be "listening to the radio". And that is the opinion of a 40-year veteran of the industry.
Royalties. No pure streamer has figured out how to make money yet.
And as BigA said, if anything, the rights holders want more money, not less.
They wouldn't be the first to be wrong. Most Americans can't speak proper English either. It is therefore understandable they don't understand correct terminology. Look up the definition of 'radio' in Websters dictionary. You will see what I mean.
My Moto 2 actually does. Most others do not (or it is not enabled). If they are listening to the actual radio device within the phone then they are listening to broadcast radio. Otherwise they are listening to a data stream. When I ask my kids what they are listening to they will usually say "music" or "Pandora". I don't think they have ever said "radio" because they are not actually listening to a radio station.
The fact that people say "hand me a Kleenex" when they mean "hand me a tissue" doesn't make it true. Xerox is a brand name and not a verb substitute for "copy". Coke makes many types of soft drinks but only a Coke is a Coke no matter how you ask for it. You get my drift?
Just as I will never understand "cash me osside" a Millennial will never alter the meaning of an accepted English word because they don't understand it. Their lack of an education does not redefine my language.
And they won't as long as the law doesn't permit it. Eventually the politicians will be bought off and the law will be changed or the streaming investors will tire of losing money and the company will fold. And if they fold will the youth of the day return to OTA radio? Not likely.
I concur. And that pretty much means the law will not change and the streamers will fold their tents and slink away under the cover of darkness. The only other alternative is that the streamers will erect their own paywall but I don't see that happening with the current technology. XM/Sirius provide wide area coverage. No such thing in streamer land.
Webster's has not caught up yet. It will, once they accept that the usage has changed... just as they now know that "gay" does not always just mean "happy".
Language is very dynamic and is constantly changing. I am reminded that the term "Hispanic" meant, until the late 70's, a person from the former Roman province of Hispania on the Iberian peninsula. Now, with the influence of the OMB and the Census Bureau, it means anyone with a heritage involving the use of Spanish or from a nation where Spanish is the dominant language.
Your generation is showing. Pandora calls itself "Internet Radio" and about 50% of the US population has registered, and about a third teens and young adults listen very regularly. In my experience, all their users call it "radio". Of course, listeners to terrestrial station streams are listening to the radio because those streams are definitely radio station originated.
As I said the words take on new meaning as the world changes. Pre-supersonic flight, there are incidents where "sound barrier" meant a very thick wall.
And the companies that own those brands have spent countless millions trying to make that point. And they have lost in public perception. Just as "give me a Coke" can really mean "give me a cola drink".
Words are not "accepted". They are dinamic. They morph. That is why reading Geoffrey Chaucer is very, very hard or next to impossible without extensive study or a glossary of terms from that era of English. Heck, nobody agreed on spelling until Samual Johnson edited his dictionary in 1755... a reading of which produces some very amusing contrasts with today's usage.
It seems likely that free streaming will be prevented by increasing costs, and paid streams and on-demand listening will prevail on the digital platform. Heck, I used to get TV for free and songs for less than a buck. Now I pay nearly $300 for cable and internet, and another $75 or so for satellite, Netflix, Slacker, Hulu and other on-demand and streaming entertainment add-ons. Things change. Folks in Montana used to listen in droves to the Opry on WSM 650 but today they don't.
Pandora has a chance of making money with the paywall. Slacker is approaching profitability with a paywall. They can add the economies of scale, as paid streaming can get licences for worldwide coverage. Netflix and Hulu are the models, not the Red and Blue networks.
I was making a longer road trip this past Monday, about 5 hours both ways, listening to satellite radio. In spite of being in this business for almost as long as David, I found the interruptions from the SiriusXM jocks on selected music channels, annoying. While punching out to another channel while some poorly voice-tracked jock blathers-on about nothing particularly interesting, I found myself asking why was I annoyed by this? Removing my radio/TV hat and going pure consumer, boiled it down to this:
* Current radio personalities for music stations, satellite or terrestrial, aren't particularly good at what they do. Trying to insert a level of personality that doesn't exist, isn't unique, or well honed by mentoring, has become a waste of airtime. People like me who have experience with true personalities over the years, find the modern ones totally annoying.
* Speaking of pay walls of sorts; Next I found myself wondering why I'm paying for a subscription to SiriusXM for the music and news channels for clumsy, amateur-sounding jocks? Of course, I recognize that unlike Pandora and Spotify, Satellite radio is programmed by former traditional radio folks. If I want free-ish music from Pandora, I get spots. If I don't want spots, I pay a subscription charge.
Kelly A, you make a very interesting observation. I do not subscribe but have a friend who does. I notice the breaks I hear seem way too long for the information they impart. In other words, what could be said concisely in 10 seconds is stretched to 30.
I would agree the air talent today cannot pull off what was heard decades prior. That is not a cut on talent today. Paul Kallinger might have put it best: In the early days of radio a feed might go out leaving you with with merely a microphone and an audience. You have to create from thin air. As he put it, if that happens to you a few times, you get pretty good at thinking on your feet and being ready for anything. He explained today's talent was never placed in the situation, not that they can't pull it off, but rather they have had no way to hone those skills by being 'thrown in the fire' when a network feed goes down for what might be a couple of hours in stormy weather.
I suppose the question is whether you feel like paying to receive a variety of formats that offer a bit too much chatting by the air talent or prefer something like Pandora or Spotify at a subscription rate to be commercial free. If you had to chose 'spots' or 'DJ chatter', which is the lesser evil?
Out of the blue:
if you listen to a computer driven station knowing nothing is live, do you feel you need to check in from time to time with a station that 'sounds' like they have a warm body in the building? Do you feel 'connected' to the outside world listening to a computer driven, nothing 'live', station? Do you feel a need to 'connect' here or there or does social media do the trick? (Some I ask feel they need to connect outside social media...in other words, beyond the friends).
if spots were limited to a few seconds, say 5 to 7 seconds or about the length of a station liner between songs, would the spots be less offensive?
And, back to topic, if an AM station was playing a music format not found on the FM dial, a format you describe as your favorite, would you listen to it on the AM dial?
I would agree the air talent today cannot pull off what was heard decades prior. That is not a cut on talent today. Paul Kallinger might have put it best: In the early days of radio a feed might go out leaving you with with merely a microphone and an audience. You have to create from thin air. As he put it, if that happens to you a few times, you get pretty good at thinking on your feet and being ready for anything. He explained today's talent was never placed in the situation, not that they can't pull it off, but rather they have had no way to hone those skills by being 'thrown in the fire' when a network feed goes down for what might be a couple of hours in stormy weather.
I suppose the question is whether you feel like paying to receive a variety of formats that offer a bit too much chatting by the air talent or prefer something like Pandora or Spotify at a subscription rate to be commercial free. If you had to chose 'spots' or 'DJ chatter', which is the lesser evil?
Out of the blue:
if you listen to a computer driven station knowing nothing is live, do you feel you need to check in from time to time with a station that 'sounds' like they have a warm body in the building? Do you feel 'connected' to the outside world listening to a computer driven, nothing 'live', station? Do you feel a need to 'connect' here or there or does social media do the trick? (Some I ask feel they need to connect outside social media...in other words, beyond the friends).
if spots were limited to a few seconds, say 5 to 7 seconds or about the length of a station liner between songs, would the spots be less offensive?
And, back to topic, if an AM station was playing a music format not found on the FM dial, a format you describe as your favorite, would you listen to it on the AM dial?
If satellite doesn't have anything going, then I generally default to local terrestrial radio, podcasts from by phone, or music via my phone. To answer your question; would I pay for Pandora or Spotify? Absolutely no.
Interesting question.. I can generally spot a voice-tracked station, mainly because I've set up literally dozens over the years. I can easily tell the difference between those jocks that really care and take the time to sound live when building their tracks, and those who are just slamming it together with generic blather without any concern for the song intro pace. It isn't a fair criticism though, because I'm in the business and super sensitive to those details. Your average listener wouldn't know the difference.
Nope, but I am unusual. I have a Twitter account, Linkedin, but that's about it. Not very active on either. Never have had a Facebook page due to security and privacy issues. I don't listen to much talk radio, mainly because it's politically aligned, preaching to the choir. Nothing wrong with those who do though.
For subscription satellite music channels? To compete with streaming I'd say no jocks and 50% less liners. I''ll bet that satellite radio listeners know what channel they're listening to. It says it right on the radio screen, for God's sake.
For streaming music? I'm not familiar with what amounts to measuring Cume or TSL, and how that stacks up for ad sales for a live stream. Obviously, the ad rate for streams, probably because there are so many of them and copyright/geographic limitations, are much less valued than traditional radio.
That depends. Being in the business, I'd be curious to hear how the station presents itself, knowing the challenges of doing music on an analog AM station. I would admire the size of their kahones, yet pity their imminent demise (RIP), but that's about it.
"Gay" became slang for homosexual and lesbian because those populations didn't like their proper labels and it was apparently more polite to use the slang definition instead of the proper description.
Once again, the proper term was subjugated by common usage by people who didn't have a clue.
You need to speak with my oldest daughter. She listens and has always called it "Pandora". She doesn't listen to "radio". Just because thousands of teens are incorrect doesn't make it correct.....or accurate.
It still means the same thing but technology has found a way through. Try to fly through the sound barrier in your WWII era aircraft and see what happens. The change was to the aircraft and not to the sound barrier.
While I agree with your point I disagree that bending the meaning of an accepted word does not make it legal or accurate. Go into an average restaurant and order a "coke" with your burger and chances are the wait staff will ask "Coke or Pepsi". That is the problem with substitute words.....they are mostly inaccurate.
And I pay only for Internet but I use it daily and for many more purposes than video or audio entertainment. If that were its only use it would not be in my house. Remember, I am an old IT guy so it is part of my DNA. Most other people would not have all the uses I have for it.
One of the great things about the Internet is the multiple places you can get what you want. Some are stores selling their product and others are freebies. I will never have a use for a Pandora but it is clear they are betting on a bunch of brain-dead teens and young adults to keep them in business. It doesn't bother me in the least how other people spend their money.
I really hate it when I type in a long response and this forum software dumps it. I will try again.....
"Gay" was obviously coined by homosexuals or lesbians who objected to the proper labels and "gay" was probably the least likely identifying word they could have chosen. I once managed a group of IT people who were largely homosexuals and they, with only one exception, were some of the most depressing, unhappy and miserable people one could find in any workplace and for a variety of reasons.
The proper name for a group of people would be something like "Francophone" for French-speakers. People used to refer to the USSR as "Russia" which was wildly inaccurate.
You should give my daughter a phone call. She has always called it "Pandora".
The world didn't change. The aircraft did. Physics is physics and the "sound barrier" is still there. Try flying any straight winged aircraft through it and see what happens.
Go in to any restaurant and order a "coke" and chances are the wait staff will reply "Coke or Pepsi?"
Being an old IT guy I use the Internet for many purposes other than videos and music. As such I pay only for Internet access and can find virtually every other thing I need from there. I don't criticize how other people spend their money but I would never pay what you do for all those services. When the industry was young I built my own satt dish (3 meter) and receiver and had a ton of fun with it but like amateur radio it lost its luster over time so now only an ivy covered pole remains where once a BUD stood. Other than that expenditure I have spent nada on services. It seems all manner of services clamors for my eyeballs via advertising yet it is so simple to ignore it. Given the rising cost of living I really doubt the average young person could afford a ton of subscription services once they start a family. The next 20 years should be interesting.
"Gay" was obviously coined by homosexuals or lesbians who objected to the proper labels and "gay" was probably the least likely identifying word they could have chosen. I once managed a group of IT people who were largely homosexuals and they, with only one exception, were some of the most depressing, unhappy and miserable people one could find in any workplace and for a variety of reasons.
The proper name for a group of people would be something like "Francophone" for French-speakers. People used to refer to the USSR as "Russia" which was wildly inaccurate.
You should give my daughter a phone call. She has always called it "Pandora".
The world didn't change. The aircraft did. Physics is physics and the "sound barrier" is still there. Try flying any straight winged aircraft through it and see what happens.
Go in to any restaurant and order a "coke" and chances are the wait staff will reply "Coke or Pepsi?"
Being an old IT guy I use the Internet for many purposes other than videos and music. As such I pay only for Internet access and can find virtually every other thing I need from there. I don't criticize how other people spend their money but I would never pay what you do for all those services. When the industry was young I built my own satt dish (3 meter) and receiver and had a ton of fun with it but like amateur radio it lost its luster over time so now only an ivy covered pole remains where once a BUD stood. Other than that expenditure I have spent nada on services. It seems all manner of services clamors for my eyeballs via advertising yet it is so simple to ignore it. Given the rising cost of living I really doubt the average young person could afford a ton of subscription services once they start a family. The next 20 years should be interesting.
I thought about posting this idea in a new thread, but this one is still worth re-visiting. Given how 'kids these days' are all about their smartphones, and given how you can't get AM radio on them, and given how zero-rating streaming services was a thing before the Trump administration came to power--what if we let local AM stations stream on your smartphone data-free within their broadcast region?
I believe the FCC has more than a few measures of oversight with the major wireless carriers and affiliated MVNOs. You give them special consideration (tax breaks?) for allowing a limited number of local AMs data-free streaming through a special vanity station app. This app is partially geofenced--you'd only get data-free streaming within the counties/zip codes of the local DMA. (For rural stations, we'll be generous and extend that to any of three adjacent counties.)
My ideal for qualifying stations: Locally owned. Minority and women-owned stations. Daytimer and graveyard AMs. Stations in cities that can't add an FM translator reasonably.
The biggest stumbling block I can imagine that would prevent this from getting off the ground? The fact that this is the same Ajit Pai-led FCC that *could* encourage FM chip activation in smartphones without any real complaint by consumers--but you know, blah blah blah the free market needs to do it themselves blah blah blah
I believe the FCC has more than a few measures of oversight with the major wireless carriers and affiliated MVNOs. You give them special consideration (tax breaks?) for allowing a limited number of local AMs data-free streaming through a special vanity station app. This app is partially geofenced--you'd only get data-free streaming within the counties/zip codes of the local DMA. (For rural stations, we'll be generous and extend that to any of three adjacent counties.)
My ideal for qualifying stations: Locally owned. Minority and women-owned stations. Daytimer and graveyard AMs. Stations in cities that can't add an FM translator reasonably.
The biggest stumbling block I can imagine that would prevent this from getting off the ground? The fact that this is the same Ajit Pai-led FCC that *could* encourage FM chip activation in smartphones without any real complaint by consumers--but you know, blah blah blah the free market needs to do it themselves blah blah blah
So some podunk station in Harrisburg Pennsylvania would qualify but WABC New York would not?
OK, so under your plan, the FCC gives the telecom company tax breaks. But most of the stations you'd allow don't have the budget to stream. Streaming is typically being done by the corporate AM stations with big budgets. So who would cover the streaming costs of the qualifying stations?
But "Hispanic" does not mean "Spanish speaking". It means people whose heritage involves the nations where Spanish is the dominant language. Thus, a Zapotec speaking indigenous person (a big community outside Bakersfield and also in northern San Diego County) from Mexico is still "Hispanic" due to their Mexican origin. A Kichwa speaker from Ecuador is similarly still called an Hispanic. But a Portuguese speaker from Brazil is not.
Given that there was no word that was inclusive enough to cover both actual language usage and heritage from a nation where Spanish is spoken, the US government invented a term by taking a seldom used word and redefining it so that it could be used to cover those people specified in the EEO and Civil Rights legislation of the 60's and 70's. Prior to that, such people were almost all classified in the "white" racial category; with the introduction of the new term, people could be of any race and also check "Hispanic" as a cultural determinant.
- Status