Slashdot Mirror


Internet Radio Failing to Find Support?

K Fox asks: "WOXY, one of the Internet's larger radio stations, has announced that it will soon implement a monthly subscription fee, to support operations. When the Cincinnati based station went from terrestrial broadcast 97.7 to Internet only, they vowed to keep their streams free to listers. Now, they are saying that increased broadcast taxes, falling advertising revenue, and the overall uncertainty in the market (local or global?) has pushed them to change their business model. Is this a sign of things to come for the other radio stations, that broadcast over the Internet? Will digital music distribution fall solely to giants like XM and iTunes?"

21 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not convinced about internet radio... by dougjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Radio over the internet is great untill the conection goes "a bit funny" and it stops streaming or drops to a lower sample rate.
    Also how do you listen to it on the move - I can't listen to it in the car or on my portable device.
    Then there's the problem whereby you can't go to your local comet (or other electronics store) and buy a radio for the office that has an ethernet port on the back - and no i'm not going to connect my computer up to the stereo becase evry time someone IM's me or I get an email or windows breaks you get horible alert noises that would drive everyone insane!

    Surley these problems are why these broadcasters are having problems.

    --
    Reinventing the wheel since 1979
    1. Re:I'm not convinced about internet radio... by Threni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > You need to setup a dedicated computer in the office for that. You don't use your personal
      > system for such things!

      So you're saying that once the problems the OP identified are overcome, on a second system `in the office` (or indeed at home) then you'll have something roughly comparable with a radio costing £/$10?

      Ok, but apart from that, why has it failed to take off?

    2. Re:I'm not convinced about internet radio... by lowrydr310 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I am surprised that the satilite radio services are surviving as well as they do

      Neither XM nor Sirius are making any money yet so 'surviving as well as they do' doesn't mean much.

      I subscribe to Sirius and I'm happy with it. I always hear the argument "why pay to have some stranger play a bunch of songs that he/she selected when you can load playlists on your ipod and play what you like to hear"

      The reality is that I hear lots of new music on Sirius that I wouldn't be exposed to if I didn't subscribe. Streaming audio (internet radio) is blocked at work so that option can be ruled out. I can play the thousands of songs I own over and over, but I like to hear new music. Listening to regular FM radio for new music is a horrible experience (littered with annoying ads and stations pushing particular songs because of payola).

      Even when Sirius is playing not so new music, I enjoy most of the shows. It's worth the price for now. If I didn't have the money I could easily live without it, but it's a nice convenience that I can afford right now. The only thing I don't like about Sirius is the horrible sound quality of most channels. The classical channels are good and Howard Stern is good, most other music channels are mediocre, and all talk stations (except for Howard Stern) sound worse than AM. I wish they would get rid of twenty or thirty stations that I never listen to and use that bandwidth to improve the quality of their other channels.

    3. Re:I'm not convinced about internet radio... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Man, slashdotters can be so fucking annoying sometimes...

      1. Another defunct one: Turtle Beach Audiotron
      2. Yet Another: KiSS DP-500
      3. This one's actually for sale on Amazon: Roku Soundbridge M1000
      4. Also for sale: Slim Devices Squeezebox
      5. On the high ($2000) end, Denon AVR-4036 Receiver has streaming (among many other things.)
      6. And the winner of our "strangest item": sermonaudio.com internet radio. Though I suspect you'd have to hack it to get it to play anything other than their content :)
      7. Oh, I guess you don't have to hack it, you can just buy the un-sermonized version as Penguin Radio.
      8. D-Link has a DVD player with internet streaming radio called DSM-320RD Medialounge. It's even wireless. There's also a HD version, the DSM-520.
      9. Even Philips has a series called Boombox.

      I'm sorry my initial example was poor. I just grabbed the first link and didn't look at it much. Nonetheless, there are umpteen fucking examples of streaming internet radio devices. Many of them are available on the shelf, even at places like Circuit Shitty. And I've seen several at Fry's, come to think of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Internet radio is not radio by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its simply a glorified PA system. Radio is wireless so unless you're
    using wi-fi to listen to the radio station it doesn't have the
    flexibility as a normal radio station (can't listen walking down the
    street , in the car or anywhere not near a cable or dial up line).
    Even with wi-fi , who wants to walk around with a laptop switched on
    under their arm?

    Internet radio is fine for the home and work markets , but it fails
    miserably for the on-the-move market where a large proportion of
    people listen to the radio.

  3. Crystal Ball by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Will digital music distribution fall solely to giants like XM and iTunes?

    It will if the RIAA has any say in the matter. The last thing they want is Internet radio. Consider that they pay broadcast radio to play songs but demand to be paid for the same songs going over the Internet.

    We can speculate on why (greed doesn't explain it, since they don't stand to gain any revenue from strangling the baby.) My own guess is that Internet radio is cheap enough to run that independent artists might build listeners and escape from the RIAA plantation.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Crystal Ball by shark72 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It will if the RIAA has any say in the matter. The last thing they want is Internet radio. Consider that they pay broadcast radio to play songs but demand to be paid for the same songs going over the Internet."

      I am not sure I follow your logic.

      With terrestrial radio, licenses are paid only to the societies run by and for the composers and songwriters -- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the like -- that is, the representatives of the copyright holders of the words and music. The record companies see none of ths money.

      With Internet radio, the RIAA successfully pushed for the owners of the copyright on the recording (that is, the record companies) to get paid, as well.

      Here is how the RIAA puts it on their own site:

      Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?

      The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

      However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ("DPRA"). In doing so, Congress "grandfathered" the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.

      In short: with Internet broadcasting, the record companies get a cut of the royalties. With traditional radio, they do not. My guess is that they do not want Internet radio stations to go away any time soon.

      This gives Slasdotters three groups of people to hate:

      • The composers and songwriters, for being greedy and demanding to be paid for radio broadcasts. Popular consensus seems to be that they should be happy just playing coffee houses.
      • The broadcast conglomerates (Clear Channel), for being greedy. Oh, and for playing sucky music.
      • The RIAA, for being greedy.
      • Greedy programmers, coders, and IT people who could get by on $50,000 a year, yet who take $70K/year salaries because that's what the job market will bear. (Kidding! Don't worry... that's not greed at all... it's just looking out for your best interests. If you wanted to scrape by on the bare minimum to live on, you would have become a musician or something.)
      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  4. Re:KCRW by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

    KCRW is one of the larger NPR affiliates, so they are in a completely different league than a small commercial station. One of the joys of being a non-profit publically funded entity...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  5. I only listen to radio when driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect it's the same for most people. That would explain the difficulty of being a 100% internet-only radio station.

  6. No, it'll stick around... by benjjj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but not in the WOXY/broadcast model. Two types of stations will persevere: (1) stations that stay off the royalties radar. (2) sites like pandora and last.fm that use personalization and social aspects to attract throngs of listeners and maximize ad revenue. WOXY made the mistake of trying to keep a high profile, i think. charging a subscription doesn't stand a chance. there are just too many other choices.

  7. Nah, it means something else. by vertinox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It means that they realized people don't want to listen to advertisment and if you are listening to internet radio, you might as well listen to non-crap non-commercialized radio.

    The problem is that radio stations have to fool advertisers that people are listening to them with contests and call in campaigns and sheer speculation. There is no way to prove how many people are listening at any given time. Just a big assumuption. With internet streaming, you have stastics and logs of who is actually listening. As with the problem with click through ads, people discovered that people ignore ads and have been for years.

    I've personally never bought or been influenced by an add on a TV or radio. Mostly because 99% of the products don't apply to a geek other than laughing at Geico commercials.

    However, I have bought plenty of things because of Adsense and searching on google because it interests me or I was actually looking for comparable products. Brute force advertising is just a waste of money.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:Nah, it means something else. by corbettw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've personally never bought or been influenced by an add on a TV or radio.

      Who's your auto/home/life insurer? How did you choose that company?

      What kind of car/truck/motorcycle do you drive (if any)? What makes you think that car/whatever is better than another (better enough to buy, at least)?

      What's your favorite breakfast cereal?

      What kind of shoes are you wearing?

      What's your favorite soft drink?

      Do you own an iPod?

      Chances are, if any of the above apply to you, you've been influenced by advertising, either on the radio or TV or somewhere else.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Nah, it means something else. by planetmn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've personally never bought or been influenced by an add on a TV or radio

      While it's possible true, I'd doubt that you've never been influenced by an ad. A ton of money is spent on research and advertising, and it's done because there is a return on investment. Sure some people are affected a lot more by advertisers (just look at QVC and other similar stations) and some are less so. While I can't think of a particular product I've purchased based on an advertisement, there are obvious times when an ad will get an idea in my head. Maybe I'm looking for something that I'd normally buy at Home Depot, but I see an ad for a local hardware store that I didn't know about previously (having just moved to the area). So now knowing about this new store, regardless of the specific item they are advertising, I might check them out. Same thing happens with local restaurants.

      Brute force advertising is just a waste of money.

      I think you'll find a lot of people who have "wasted" that money who would disagree. There is a reason they advertise. There is a reason why they invest so much to produce and air a commercial. It's for return on investment. Does targetted advertising have a higher return on investment? Probably. But the only way to currently do targetted advertising is on the web (well you could advertise on certain shows/channels/times on tv/radio), whereas the vast majority of people still use the tv and radio for entertainment.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
  8. This station is great by bemenaker · · Score: 4, Informative
    WOXY was one the premiur stations in the US until they went off the air. (Personally, for the short time afterwards that Matt Sledge was still running the Broadcast station that was left, was the best the station had ever been!)

    WOXY has long been an independant station that played what the DJ's and fans liked. They never sold out to corporate rock, and their motto always has been "Corporate Radio SUCKS!" Their selection varies so widely, and they try their bests to honor requests from everyone. Even when they were on the air and internet at the same time, they took email request around the world.

    Gonna have to buy a subscription and support this incredible station.

  9. Biggest problem is... by TheNoxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have access to a computer with all of your mp3's on iTunes or whatever digital music player, why chew up bandwidth to listen to someone else pick songs you don't really want to listen to?

    The only online radio stations I ever listen to, and barely at that, are playlists from David Byrne on his website cast as streaming audio.

    --
    Ex nihilo nihil fit.
  10. Why I stopped listening to any radio IMHO by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. The music is usually bad

    2. The music is the same playlist shuffled differently for each new day

    3. There are no deejays that will actually play obscure requests

    4. Too many annoying commercials / fake deejays

    5. Too many stations are owned by the same companies

    6. Companies have been doing 'pay to play' illegally - big surprise

    7. I buy my own music to hear the artists I enjoy - I am in control

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  11. Re:KCRW by jdunlevy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, critically KCRW's webcast is a simulcast of their over-the-air signal. WOXY.com is now internet-only.

  12. Uh, no ... by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > Will digital music distribution fall solely to giants like XM and iTunes?

    Uh -- no. But internet radio is in its infancy. It will take off with the deployment of wireless broadband and a new class of devices capable of pulling streams without being connected to a computer.

    The first show will drop when Apple makes available a wireless version of the iPod. I bet this will happen before Christmas.

    After that, it's just a function of wireless rollout. According to Bridge Research, a research company that does most of its work for commercial radio, There will be something on the order of 130 million wireless broadband users in 2010. Wired users will make up another 150 million or so. This should be enough critical mass to make internet radio commercially viable.

    Of course, all advertising-supported media is changing. The day of mass-media supremacy is coming to an end, and wirelessly delivered entertainment should further democratize content delivery.

    In the meantime, internet broadcasters will have to find clever business models to stay afloat. Applying old-school models to new media won't be effective.

    By the way, Bridge projects XM and Sirius to be at a combined market of less than 50 million subscribers in 2010. Sat broadcasting could become quite profitable at that level, but hardly dominant in terms of ears. Look for major satelite entertainment brands to migrate to internet radio as it grows.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  13. Radio Paradise by jone_stone · · Score: 4, Informative

    The internet radio station I listen to, Radio Paradise, seems to be doing all right, and it's run entirely on user contributions and affiliate programs (iTunes, Amazon, etc). There are no commercials and it isn't even a non-profit. In fact, they recently topped ten thousand simultaneous listeners for the first time. The only minus is that they occasionally mention being listener-supported and ask for donations. Nowhere near as obnoxious as NPR pledge drives, though....

    I know this is just one example, but it shows that it's possible to have an internet radio stations with free streams be a successful business.

  14. WOXY, follow Oprah, Howard Stern... by csorice7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I lived in OH, went to Miami University and for any of you that are/were locals, this station represents independent radio. Sure, there are others nationally, but this one is hard to match in its variety, its zest for new artists and the unique way they can pull in bands for sets, interviews, etc. Is any radio/media venue worth $120 a year? Boy, WOXY's two streaming stations v. XM and Sirius at ~$15/month is a tough match up. HBO at ~$10/month is also a tough pricing comparable. With Oprah getting $55mm, why can't they just partner up with a sattelite provider for who they are? Howard Stern sure did. In the end, I've subscribed for one reason - I've learned more from this station about new artists than anywhere else. Who can put a price on knowledge and credibility?

    --
    Working to make ideas into reality. www.i4e.com
  15. Legal issues - Not technical or economic issues... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be very easy and very economical to run an internet radio station. It would be fairly simple to build a p2p broadcast client that operated like bittorrent (so as to eliminate the need for a single server to serve bandwidth to everyone). And find people who would want to DJ and play music is easy. There is nothing inherently expensive or technically difficult about that. Because the costs are so cheap, it wouldn't take much to make it a profitable buisness.

    The hard part of Internet radio is dealing with all the legal restrictions, licencing, ASCAP payments, and whatever.

    Like all government regulation, the regulations and legal restrictions are designed to create fixed costs such that the barrier to entry is so high that there are only a few large competitors in the industry.

    Eliminate all the restrictions and regulations, and Internet radio will take off.