On 1/14/2012 11:59 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

I'm not sure why there is even a discussion about either quality or
selection, since the great masses of youth (the ones being marketed TO)
are sheep. They listen to what they are TOLD to by the PM's at the radio
stations, who, in turn, play what THEY are told to by the recording
industry. The few that actually WANT alternative programming do not
constitute (and never will) a sales pool that will be profitable.

It's amusing to see proclamations that since the digital radio system in
the U.S. is not of a quality that audiophiles would accept that somehow
it needs to be scrapped in favor of something with a much higher bit
rate so those listening to concerts in their car can do so from the
radio rather than from a CD. The reason that every double blind test of
audio quality has shown that listeners prefer digital radio over analog
has much more to do with interference resulting from impaired conditions
than from the raw bit rate. Every compression scheme is a compromise,
and the key is to find a scheme that is of acceptable quality, not one
that is lossless and that is as good as the original uncompressed
content (though of course CDs are also compressed content).

The question that digital radio answered was "what is a spectrally
efficient method of using existing bandwidth to increase content choices
and audio quality _and_ that has a clear path to an all digital system.
If there had been any competition, it would have been another IBOC system.

With all the stupid new laws going (or that have gone) into effect
regarding pay for content, many stations' profit margin has dropped
significantly. The recording industry has bitten the hand that feeds it
by requirirng stations (ESPECIALLY HD2 and HD3 streams as well as
internet streams) to pay exhorbatant fees for content.

Broadcasters should be thrilled about the costs being incurred by
streaming companies like Pandora, as well as the costs incurred by
satellite radio, since terrestrial broadcasters are not paying content
royalty fees like streamers and satellite radio are. Unless of course
the station also streams, but they only pay the content royalties based
on the number of on-line listeners.

The Performance Rights Act (never passed) would have imposed content
royalty fees on radio stations but they are much lower fees than are
currently paid by satellite or streaming. There will probably be future
attempts to pass this sort of legislation. One problem is that there is
no way of knowing how many listeners are listening to a specific station
in order to charge royalties per listener. With Arbitron ratings so
inaccurate, broadcasters would not agree to paying royalties based on
those ratings, so royalties per song would be based on some other
metric, such as total station revenue (in order to avoid destroying
small stations).

It is true that HD Radio sub-channels are charged royalty fees to
artists (through SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI) because they are essentially
separate station. I don't know how the issue of HD1 versus analog is
handled. Since it's the same content on both, do the stations have to
pay only once? But HD sub-channels aren't charged content royalty fees
(unless of course they are also streaming, and then it's just for the
number of people streaming).

If you care about the financial health of a radio station, and have a
choice between streaming an OTA listening, choose OTA.