|
Monday, October 6, 2003
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
Monday, October 6, 2003
started 10/6/2003; 4:01:08 AM - last post 10/6/2003; 2:41:50 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Monday, October 6, 2003 
10/6/2003; 8:01:08 AM (reads: 6907, responses: 10)
|
|
And we're off
| | Travel day today. Unless I get on wi-fi at Logan or LAX, I'll see you next in Santa Barbara. |
| | [Later...] I'm back, and I'm tired (easy trip; just a long one). See ya tomorrow. |
RouteAround Radio
| | A bunch of us from BloggerCon went to dinner last night it was effectively the last event of the conference and talked, among other things, about radio. One of us worked with a school that wanted to start a radio station. Should they try to put the station on the air in the conventional way, with a small local signal on the FM band, or on the Net? |
| | I recommended the latter. Partly because it's a lot cheaper and easier, and partly because the Net can easily be extended to the air in a clean and unlicensed way. |
| | For example, this morning I listened to Chris Lydon's latest interview, with Len Apcar of the New York Times. I listened in the shower at the hotel, on the radio. The station was on 88.5FM, a relatively open channel here in Cambridge, MA. The transmitter was an iRock 300w Wireless Music Adapter that I picked up for about 25 bucks at Radio Shack. The range is short, but probably not much shorter than a wi-fi signal. |
| | Whether by wi-fi, digital cellular, satellite or something else, big licensed brute-force radio transmission will eventually become a thing of the past. Not only because it's woefully costly, bureaucratized and ineffecient, but because it's a bottleneck between supply and demand. The Net will route around that bottleneck. Count on it. |
discuss
|
|
Steve MacLaughlin - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 2:10:34 PM (reads: 1551, responses: 9)
|
|
|
Satellite radio has more folks in the radio biz freaking out at the moment than the Internet. That may mean they are overlooking an even more menacing threat to their ratings. But until Web radio cuts into their advertising I don't think they will give it a second glance. Follow the money...
Steve MacLaughlin
http://www.strathlachlan.com
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 6:22:19 PM (reads: 1609, responses: 6)
|
|
|
Forgive me, but... so what about the radio business? I'm not talking here about changing the radio business as it stands, or what threatens its remains. I'm talking about building a new ad hoc radio system using existing, available, unlicensed, low-cost materials and transmission methods. Or just having a good time with what's possible.
The guy I was talking to last night wasn't looking to get his school in the radio business either. He was comparing the project costs of setting up an old fashioned school radio station operating on the licensed FM band with doing something much cheaper on the Net.
Actually, when he brought the subject up we quickly visited the problem for stations like his school is contemplating: licensed Low Power FM has been gradually squashed by large forces, including NPR, over the last 30 years. Meaning that, unless his school is out in Northwest Nowhere, there isn't an available channel.
Many years ago, you could start a 10-watt school or community station. Many of those have grown to become big-time noncommercial stations since then. Alas, thanks to successful lobbying by NPR and others, now you can't. New LPFM regs adopted in 2000 were scaled waaay back. And there has always been this silly notion, still embodied in communications law, that noncommercial broadcasting has an "educational" charter. Back in the days when low power licenses were still available, applicants needed to bullshit about their "educational" intentions. Not that it mattered. Witness all the evangelical christian stations that fill the FM dial south of 92MHz. I'm not knocking them, but I am saying that "education" is just as far from their agenda as anything happening among nonreligious stations on the same corner of the dial.
Anyway, I'm far more excited about what's possible on the open range of the Net than on the closed cages of licensed (even satellite) radio.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 6:29:46 PM (reads: 1228, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I should add that commercial radio has a split between its customers and its consumers. The customers of commercial radio, as you point out, are their advertisers, not their listeners. The consumers of commercial radio have approximately zero influence on what they hear. They have somewhat more influence over what they hear on noncommercial listener-supported stations, because in those cases they are customers as well as consumers.
Satellite radio has a somewhat different model, where the consumers are also customers, but so (in some cases) are the advertisers. That makes satellite radio *far* more accountable to its listeners than regular commercial radio. No wonder the old guard is freaked.
discuss
|
|
Steve MacLaughlin - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 6:41:50 PM (reads: 1212, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Yeah...that's kinda what I was getting at. The satellite radio model is much more listener (I know how you hate the word "consumer") friendly. Web radio takes that concept even further, but obviously there are some different hurdles.
Satellite radio has the "old guard" freaked because to them it appears as a much more immediate threat to what they are doing. Hence all the lawsuits barring local repeaters from also broadcasting local content. And the reason why most on-air talent are barred from even discussing sat radio.
The radio folks don't see Web radio as taking away customers, just taking away consumers that don't have "real" value to them. The whole stream-on/stream-off episode of a few years ago made them even more techno-phobic than they already are.
One thing I will say is that using Web radio could be a great alternative...but it is very difficult to find out basic how-to's...unless I'm just not searching in the right places.
discuss
|
|
adamsj - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 10:31:42 PM (reads: 1299, responses: 2)
|
|
|
Doc, you've just pegged why I had no sympathy whatsoever when the NPR station in--where? Louisiana? I think so--was whining about how they were getting pushed off the air by a Christian station. They were just getting a taste of their own medicine.
Having watched the NPR takeover of a formerly student-run and student-funded station, I'll never--ever!--give those people a penny out of my pocket. I've attended live broadcasts of Whad'Ya Know (a great PRI show which NPR has, in my opinion, targeted for death with Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, a very funny show except for being used as a programming weapon), and would do the same for Prarie Home Companion or This American Life (also PRI shows). I regret the part of my cash that goes to the NPR stations which put on the local shows, though.
One other thing--and this is hard for me to say, as I am neither right-wing nor Christian, let alone fundamentalist--but if you listen to the finance shows on NPR stations and those on the Christian stations, it quickly becomes obvious what audience each serves. The NPR stuff is almost exclusively aimed at upper-middle-class and above, while the Christian stations program for the middle-class and below. It's a stark divide, and in this case, the fundies happen to be doing the right thing--they give good practical advice.
Shame on NPR and those who give them money.
discuss
|
|
lou josephs - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 10:58:24 PM (reads: 1170, responses: 1)
|
|
|
And now you know why public radio is so messed up. With NPR and PRI you have two groups trying to hit the same target. Who do you think wins the one with the money or the outlaw from the midwest. Just check any public radio stations program schedule and you have your answer.
discuss
|
|
lou josephs - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/6/2003; 10:59:28 PM (reads: 1256, responses: 0)
|
|
|
While this is all in theory possible the roadblocks are very large.
discuss
|
|
Griff Wigley - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/7/2003; 11:58:37 AM (reads: 1115, responses: 2)
|
|
|
Doc:
The guy I was talking to last night wasn't looking to get his school in the radio business either. He was comparing the project costs of setting up an old fashioned school radio station operating on the licensed FM band with doing something much cheaper on the Net.
That guy would be me. ;-)
Thanks for the tips, Doc.
I have a meeting with the school today (a new public charter high school called ARTech that my daughter attends) and I'll report back what they want to do. My worry is that this model won't compete as well with the sexiness of a live radio station ala Pump Up the Volume.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/7/2003; 1:06:42 PM (reads: 1353, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I can make it easier for you.
If the school and the proposed transmitter are anywhere near The Cities, there won't be a channel available anyway.
Let's go through the exercize.
Here are the coordinates for downtown minneapolis:
Latitude: N 44 58 47 Longitude: W 93 15 48
Here is the FCC's audio division's page for looking up records for a frequency or a locality:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/atlas2.html
Here are your results for a 100km radius from that location.
Note that most of the "NEW" and "APP" are for christian stations of one kind or another. The most resourceful FM facilities engineers out there today are all working for religious organizations. The secular schools and nonprofits are waaaay behind the ball on this one. For most locations in the country, the game is over.
Webcasting is the only way to go.
discuss
|
|
Griff Wigley - Re: Saturday, October 4, 2003 
10/7/2003; 2:27:31 PM (reads: 1325, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Nifty. Here are all the stations within 50km of Northfield.
It looks like only two are categorized as Class L1 (100 watt LPFM) and they're 30 and 45 miles from us. But you're saying that wouldn't matter?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not eager to work on trying to get a LPFM license for the school. I'm just trying to line up the arguments for those who might be.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|