RadioWest "ON THE AIR"??? a suggestion

[Tape Splicer]

"""Re: What's It Going To Take...?

postby Breeze » 12 Nov 2013, 05:52
Pave,

With all due respect. But instead of just bitching about how radio has failed so terribly for 25 pages now - perhaps it might be more productive instead of just the rant to say what you would actually do."""
=========================================
Picking up on this thought from "Breeze"... Fom the thread: "What's It Going To Take"

Is there any easy way to have a "Demonstration Web Radio Station" as part of the RW web site?

I have no idea how it would be set up so that members of the board, with broadcast experience could participate in the programming and operation of such a web station.

Just a thought for discussion, and perhaps serious consideration.

[jon]

To quote an early WKRP episode: "Will this involve the playing of rock and roll music?"

Music costs money to play on an Internet radio station. Take a look here:
http://www.socan.ca/licensees/music-use#new-media

That is just for Canadian listeners. You have to do the equivalent for each country where you have a listener.

The paperwork takes longer than all the on-air work.

[Tape Splicer]

Jon; Accepted, SOCAN would cause a significant financial drain on an internet radio station that would be set up legally

For the sake of education, what are the other hoops that one would have to jump through in order to run a web radio station that would pass the scrutiny of the powers that be?

What are the technical requirements to make it work?

[jon]

Is there any easy way to have a "Demonstration Web Radio Station" as part of the RW web site?

To clarify: I was solely answering this question, with just one of the reasons why the answer is "No", there is no easy way to do this as part of the RW web site. I haven't dug into it, but, from what I have read, it would also violate our Terms of Service (ToS) with our commercial web hosting company.

To put that into perspective, most radio stations do not use their own web site to host their Internet "Listen Live" service. If you look at the URL in the player, you'll see for yourself who is actually doing the streaming.

I have not explored the alternatives, but whenever I've been asked about this in the past, I've suggested this as a starting place: http://www.live365.com/broadcast/
Lots to read there, as well as offering the services they do. Pricing starts at $4/month but that only gives you 5 listeners (excluding Live365 VIP members).

[Bigbangboom]

Wait a minute - are you saying that profitability is a factor in this decision?
why would that be?
or are you wearing a suit right now?

[Tape Splicer]

Thank you Jon for answering the question - I would not want to see RW in hot water with anyone.

[freqfreak2]

Wait a minute - are you saying that profitability is a factor in this decision?

Ironically, this is the very question at the root of all this "bitching" - how does radio of ANY type pay the freight these days?

The question Jon is answering refers specifically to the cost of operating a web-based service: hosting and bandwidth takes money.

Anyone care to pony up? I guarantee there will be no profit.

[Jack Bennest]

The idea has merit but the cost and energy to set up would break most backs and bank accounts.

No one believes me - but broadcasting is dead. I hope there is a re-birth before I die

Some people in radio are making money - but it's not the talent. I think the janitor might be paid more.

I could go on and on - with this subject - but I won't. Suffice to say radio and TV stations are dead or dying - with content the new word.

Where do you get your entertainment/news content - to fill the hours of a dreary life?

At the moment I get it from cable with more content coming soon to the pipeline.

[skyvalleyradio]

Aside from the outrageous royalty costs, running a web-station is pretty straight-forward. One needs software capable of live/live-assist or full automation, also the ability to transmit a stream to a stream-host. This requires a fairly hefty computer with plenty of CPU power and RAM memory, also a large HD to store music library, if applicable. Stream-hosting is quite competitive and cheap these days. Service is sold as "listener slots" - the total capacity of listeners allowed connection. Typical example is $15/month for 10 listener slots @ 128 kps bitrate/44.1 kHz sampling for a decent quality mp3/mp3PRO or AAC+ stream.

Greed on the part of royalty societies has pretty much killed the blossoming "homebrew" Internet non-commercial "hobby stations" that seemed to promise a bright future for Internet radio some 10 years back - particularly "narrowcasting" to specialized audiences not satisfied with talk or music available on terrestial radio. Now, only the most successful of commercial, mass-appeal streams can afford to pay these over-the-top fees. I have talked with a number of well-known musicians from Canada, the US & UK totally against this practice, as it only benefits those with high-income music careers. New emerging music & musicians/groups (as the CRTC so much wants to emphasize in broadcasting) have little chance of airplay or exposure without the 50,000+ Internet broadcasters that once existed before the big crunch by SOCAN, BMI, ASCAP, SESAC etc. A flat yearly fee of say, $500-$1000/year for non-commercial hobby "Netcasters" is a reasonable cost and would encourage the many of us skilled, experienced and ready to broadcast. Doubling that fee for hobby stations with small amounts of advertising revenue is also do-able.

Live 365 - the "training wheels" of webcasting is an alternative as they pay the royalties. However, changes over the last 5 years may not make this legal to use in Canada now. The irritating thing about Live 365 is that they insert commercials and not necessarily where one wants them - often in the middle of a programmed 'stopset'. Many of the Live 365 ads tend be quite obnoxious after hearing them for the 10+ time. I would never listen to a Live 365 station just for these reasons norre consider broadcasting via their service.

[freqfreak2]

Suffice to say radio and TV stations are dead or dying ...

And you can add newspapers, most anything rooted in bricks and mortar, and perhaps even radio boards to that list.

The model of human connectivity continues to evolve. The old establishment of books, newspapers, radio and TV -- and even what first populated the internet -- has given way to the portability, immediacy and self-publishing capabilities of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Netflix and e-book variations, with on-demand content delivery, will be the children of the old guard.

Change in how we do things has always been going on. What used to take a generation now takes place in years.

Radio's demise has been hastened by over saturation and common ownership. But I doubt the old world of major markets with just five stations would even have been strong enough to counter what's going on these days.

And remember, this new world is being piloted by the same sort of young know-it-all upstarts that set the world on fire decades ago. In 30 or 40 years, they too will lament the change from how things used to be.