[BC] DRM broadcasting to begin in USA

[Robert Orban]

At 04:40 PM 10/21/2007, Rich Wood wrote:

>Broadband wireless Internet is still radio. What concerns me is the 
>incredible choices it'll offer. Perhaps so much that no one will be 
>able to make money with it. We'll be competing with every "station" 
>in every market in every corner of the world. It'll make the 
>"stations between the stations" look as meager as it really is.
>
>I think we'll have to come up with a different economic model. 
>Compelling content will be far more important than it is today. I'm 
>assuming it'll be full Internet access and not limited to those who 
>have paid to be carried.

If you complain (as you have in the past) that HD2 channels merely 
dilute a station's potential revenue stream, I'd be curious to know 
what your proposed business model would be when the potential number 
of stations is virtually unlimited. How are broadcasters and content 
providers going to get paid? Your post above indicates that you have 
grave concerns about this. But it seems to me that the winners are 
going to be the ones who figure out how to promote their streams 
better than their rivals. Marketing 102 says that too much choice 
tends to paralyze consumer decision making. (Although there are 
hundreds of satellite radio streams, there are only two providers, 
which makes it easy for consumers to choose.) So how are Internet 
radio streams going to get promoted?

This may all sort itself out automatically, particularly with the 
performance royalty structure currently in place. The losers in the 
promotion wars are going to want to "play radio" for just so long 
before they realize that it doesn't pay their rent or put food on the table.