[BC] Listening in the car

[Rich Wood]

------ At 09:20 AM 8/5/2006, nakayle at gmail.com wrote: -------

>  Well the thing about it is that netcasting is very cheap compared to
>broadcasting.  It can easily be a one-man operation- no license, no
>regulations, no limits on numbers or range, yet even the smallest netcaster
>has a world-wide clear-channel so he can reach a select audience where-ever
>they are with a few sponsors interested in this targeted audience- so if a
>guy likes fishing and wants to hear people talk about fishing while he
>drives to work- he can now do that and makers of fishing gear will be eager
>to pay to reach him.

Nat,
     You need to do a little research. I've been involved with 
several companies (on boards of directors, boards of advisors, etc) 
who provided streaming services. I was among the first radio stations 
(WOR) to put a radio station on broadcast.com. Virtually every 
company that provided streaming services has raised its prices or 
gone out of business. The RIAA sensed fresh blood and added fees for 
webcast music. AFTRA wanted its performers to be compensated for 
commercials run in streams. Ad agencies told stations not to run 
their commercials on the web because they hadn't contracted for that 
service. A whole new industry sprang up to replace spots in streams 
that were done by AFTRA personnel. If you think small basement 
webcasters will get away scott free, remember the RIAA is the 
organization that went after kids illegally sharing music.

Remember, when you buy music on CD or download it, you DO NOT own it. 
Effectively, you lease it. You have the legal right to make an 
archival copy or one to use in the car. The interesting catch is 
(like software) it can be used by only one person at a time. You 
can't let your wife listen to the same music you're listening to in 
the car at the same time. Pretty soon, along with all the HDTV copy 
protection schemes, I'll bet we'll see copy protection make a return 
just like the early days of software.

Shortly after Mark Cuban sold broadcast.com to Yahoo, they shut it 
down. The cost of bandwidth was too expensive and brought in very 
little money. Most stations couldn't afford what they'd have to 
charge. The more listeners, the more bandwidth, the higher the price.

Please don't delude yourself into believing that webcasting is free. 
It isn't. At the moment, most large webcasters are relying on 
advertising to keep it free to the consumer - the broadcast model.

>Programs like this will be available for every imaginable interest that can
>downloaded to a Ipod-like device that you can carry with you as easily as a
>portable radio.  And eventually there will be universal WiFi and WiMax so
>you can hear this stuff in real time anywhere.

With some reservations, I agree these services will be available. 
Again, don't delude yourself into believing that they'll be free. 
Most of the providers are Telcos. There isn't much they do for free. 
WiMAX requires a huge infrastructure. For it to work and replace 
broadcasting, Telcos will have to cover as much of the nation as 
radio stations do. If New England is any example, there are lots more 
towers yet to be built before their coverage comes anywhere near 
radio. If you live in a rural area away from a major highway, the 
only bars you're going to see sell booze.

>People in broadcasting will have to realize the world is changing- and the
>future is not broadcasting- it's narrowcasting- so that everyone can hear
>what they want- not what mass marketers think they should hear.

Unless you're psychic you don't know what the future will be. Yes, 
the world is changing. The risk is that it might change in very 
different directions than you expect. Every one of us has heard the 
predictions of radio's death for decades - every time some technology 
appears that makes noise.

No one has yet been able to answer if WiMAX or other wireless 
services will be able to handle hundreds of thousands of streams, 
connections or whatever we'll call them, at the same time at the 
highest speeds they promise at all times. I'm about 10 miles North of 
a city with wireless "broadband." Not what we expect from cable or 
DSL (though much more expensive) and I can't receive the highest 
speed service, though the price is the same. For Cingular the 
unlimited data service (without a voice line) is $79.99 They mention 
an additional $19.99 for WiFi add on. Not sure what that's all about 
because you, allegedly, have an Internet connection with the data 
card.  lower priced unlimited service is $59.99 if you have at least 
the $39.99 voice service. This is known as a tethered service since 
it can be connected to a computer. That "lower price" is $20 more 
expensive than the expensive service. Only Telcos and cable companies 
seem to be able to offer their less expensive services at higher 
prices than their expensive services. Don't forget those government 
taxes and the cost of the data card.

If you have a Treo you need the $39.99 voice service plus the $39.99 
data service. That doesn't allow a computer connection. Without the 
data service the Treo has no Internet access. It has text messaging 
but no web surfing.

I believe we'll have wireless Internet in the future that'll make 
IBUZ look like a crank telephone. Radio services will become content 
providers.

Right now, it sure sounds to me like all this "free" wireless 
Internet service is pretty expensive.

Rich


Rich Wood
Rich Wood Multimedia
Phone: 413-454-3258