Author : Mark Krieger

Broadband access in the home has become the norm in American households. According to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project conducted in April of this year, 63 percent of adult Americans indicate they now have some form of broadband Internet connections at home. That figure is up substantially from the 54 percent level registered by a similar survey taken at the close of 2007 and suggests that broadband is on pace to become ubiquitous in U.S. household in the short term.

It’s no surprise, then, that dedicated Wi-fi radios have transcended their origin as an uber-geek novelty to a teeming market niche with more than 40 models available. And that’s not taking into account a burgeoning assortment of advanced handsets that can accommodate Internet radio/Wi-fi apps.

The range of products is diverse. Old school audiophiles can purchase a Sangean Wi-fi radio tuner that looks very much like a typical FM/AM model with stereo RCA line outputs.  Traditional desktop models abound, some in stereo, others in mono and most with traditional clock/alarm functionality. For those who like a little punch in their audio, V Tech offers the IS9181 with 3W stereo front speakers and a 10W subwoofer.  If you want a portable that moves around the house with you, the Revo Pico’s diminutive size and rechargeable batteries could be the ticket. In fact, an electronic hobbyist blog recently published a do-it-yourself project for converting an old wireless router into a Wi-fi radio for under $100.

And die-hard IBOC digital radio supporters will be thrilled to learn they can now have HD Radio and Wi-fi access in one compact box. The new Sonoro elements W from Germany reportedly combines Wi-fi, HD Radio and Ipod functionality, all in a single, stylish package. And a new entry from Kogan bundles analog AM/FM on board.

So who’s buying Wi-Fi radios? In general, dedicated Internet appliances are not flying off the shelves the way a lot of manufacturers and vendors had hoped, but the trade in Wi-fi radios seems to be building.  Anecdotally, this writer knows several people who own them, and none fit the geek profile. One bought his so he could listen to MLB baseball games without the noise on AM or the expense of a satellite radio subscription. Another uses it to track world newscasts from the BBC and other international broadcasters he used to monitor via shortwave. And the last uses it to access public radio programming not available on her local NPR affiliate. All say they’re satisfied with their purchase.

Thus, it’s content and quality that appear to be driving the Wi-fi radio trend. And as broadband becomes available in virtually every home, look for that momentum to build, as those who still rely on radio turn to the Internet for home delivery of content.

Author : Chriss Scherer

Radio by its nature is a mobile medium. And most radio listening is done in our most familiar mobile environment: The car. Being that a radio is a standard device in any car (Can you even imagine buying a car without a radio?) makes it easy to make radio mobile. However, once we leave the car, radio almost completely loses its mobile standing.

There is no lack of portable radio receivers, but with the proliferation of media players, I see very few people carrying a device that is only a radio receiver. Several media players offer a built-in radio receiver, which helps radio, although most users are listening to their own selections and not a radio station.

What makes radio such a good delivery mechanism? The broadcast model is very efficient. One transmitter feeds an unlimited number of receivers (listeners). The cost per listener decreases as the number of listeners increases because the terrestrial transmission system has a fixed cost and can feed an unlimited number of receivers.

But radio is facing a new challenge from Internet streaming. While streaming is not a new idea, it continues to attract new users. Compared to terrestrial broadcasting, streaming is a less-efficient delivery method. There is a fixed cost for the system (like terrestrial), but there is usually a cost per listener as well. With this in mind, the current push to add radio receivers to cell phones makes sense, but it could be a short-term solution.

Some recent discussion has speculated that streaming will not spell the end for terrestrial transmissions. In general, I agree — given the current methods of streaming. We all know that technology is not static. Given time and consumer demand it can change quickly. Even with the current limitations of streaming, stations should not ignore streaming completely.

For radio stations, streaming should be viewed as yet another path to reach an audience. It may not be a large segment today, but it has potential for the future. It can be a way to distribute a main program channel. It can be used to send supplementary channels, like an HD Radio multicast. It can be used to send best-of programming from the main channel. It can be used to offer niche formats designed for a small audience. There are lots of potential uses of supplemental channels.

What’s more important is to consider the future listener. While terrestrial radio seems ubiquitous today, I don’t see the younger listeners rushing out to buy a new radio. They have cell phones and media players galore — and get new ones every few months. To this demographic, terrestrial radio is old school. If they have radio receivers in their devices, it’s usually because it just happens to be there, not because it was a conscious decision to have one.

There are lots of existing streaming services available. While streaming does not yet have the transmission efficiency, it has another advantage: It’s a software-based player. Advances in codecs and players can be implemented with few challenges (or even interaction) for the listener. While a radio receiver could be software-based as well — especially if it is implemented in a mobile device — there are still hardware challenges involved.

Radio already knows how to create successful program streams. As consumer listening evolves and changes, so must radio. Streaming to mobile devices is just one consideration.

Author : Chriss Scherer

Online streaming has been the quiet partner in the audio delivery realm, although we have talked about it since the late 1990s. Some stations have streamed all this time, while others have come and gone; and some have come back.

From a business point of view, streaming’s challenge is its profitability (or lack thereof so far). The complex and comparatively expensive royalty issues alone discourage many from pursuing it. The bandwidth costs of the one-to-one transmission (rather than the one-to-many system of broadcast) are also a challenge. The more popular your stream becomes, the more expensive it is to deliver.

Through all this, there are those who maintain that streaming is just not worth the effort. If that’s the case, why are online services so omnipresent? Pandora, Slacker, iHeartRadio and others maintain visibility in the news, in social network circles and even our own industry press. How many sessions at conventions include some mention of if not a total focus on streaming? For an activity that’s not that important it sure has a following.

For Pandora, Slacker and others, online is their only game. Unlike iHeartRadio and CBS Interactive, which have established broadcast brands to fuel their efforts, the online-only crowd has to make it solely on their online efforts. Streaming is not a value added, it’s their asset.

In July, Clear Channel’s iHeartRadio made a splash about adding more Pandora-like features to its app. That’s good for iHeartRadio, but also a push for Pandora (which also recently gained public investors). We know the saying about imitation being the highest form of flattery.

Clear Channel has planned a huge Las Vegas event in September to kick-off the new features. As the event approaches we’ll hear more about it, but we’ll also hear more about listening to streams online. It seems streaming is important again.

While radio likes to downplay the role of online-only streamers, they should still be watched. As I noted earlier, streaming has its downsides, but the number of consumers carrying some kind of connected device continues to grow. While the NAB pushes to have FM included in all cell phones, broader online choices continue to grow. (I should note that this entire discussion relates to streaming in general. The debate of streaming vs. over-the-air broadcasting during emergencies and times of high data traffic are not the norm. Over-the-air has certain advantages at certain times, but this is all about the routine use, not emergencies.)

What’s the appeal of Pandora? The new features of iHeartRadio seem to answer that. Listeners can access various stations online of course, but they can also create their own custom stations based on their listening preferences. Clear Channel says its new service will also add non-audio features such as song lyrics, contests and locally targeted news updates. Localism added to an Internet stream? Gee, that sounds just like … radio.

Clear Channel also says it won’t need to make money from the new service. I find that hard to believe. A business is created to make money in some way. According to an iHeartRadio statement, the service will be successful if it helps Clear Channel reach audiences in different ways. There’s merit to that idea; extending the reach and reinforcing the brand is a good thing. But if it’s not adding something to the bottom line I don’t see the practice continuing forever.

Radio stations have one advantage in streaming: They already know how to create an audio stream to a target audience. And while anyone has yet to really find the hook in making streaming a profitable venture, it has the advantage of furthering a station brand. It also keeps a station relevant in the eyes of the online listener.

Lanark, Scotland – Aug 31 – Revo Technologies has introduced its K2 digital radio, which is capable of delivering reception of a wide variety of radio formats including DAB, DAB+, FM and Internet radio. K2′s hardware specifications include a large, graphic, secret-until-lit OLED display, a motorized dock for Apple devices, and an array of connection options including stereo RCA and digital optical out, Apple video out, and 3.5mm headphone jack.

The K2 is compatible with Revo’s new RadioControl App for Apple’s iPod and iPhone. This application acts as a full remote control to select DAB, FM, Internet radio, Last.fm, and provides control for volume up/down, play, pause, love/ban and EQ settings.

The K2 will go on-sale worldwide on Oct. 17 with a suggested retail price of about $500.

Source : Doug Irwin, CPBE DRB

New York – Aug 25, 2011 – Will we ever reach a point in time such that our cellular system (and more specifically, Internet broadcasting) is able reach as many people reliably as terrestrial broadcasting? After the events of this past week, I really wonder. The earthquake that was felt along much of the east coast on Aug. 23, 2011, generated so much cellular phone traffic that many users experienced difficulty in completing calls, at least immediately after the event. Systems were overloaded.

As I write this (on Aug. 25, 2011) it is predicted that Hurricane Irene will run right over Manhattan within about 72 hours. Due to my past experience I expect issues with the cellular system as the storm passes and afterwards.

Moreover, have we seen any improvement over the years? I was reading an article I wrote in 2005 about Katrina (“When Disaster Strikes,” Oct. 2005) in which I quote Marty Hadfield, then director of engineering for Entercom, regarding cellular phone availability immediately after the event. “The worst part is when you have lots of people concentrated in one spot; the cellular system gets overloaded. All the downtown sites were constantly overloaded. After about three days though, people’s batteries began dying, and so the cell sites came back in to a useable condition.”

“But those are unusual emergency events,” you say. Interestingly, James Cridland, in his blog entry of Aug. 23, examines the notion that everyone at a soccer match can listen to the game being “broadcast” via the Internet. With some simple math James shows that, at best, 2.8kb/s is available to each user of the O2 Mobile 3G network who happens to find himself at Manchester United’s stadium. For everyone there to listen to a 32kp/s stream, in theory at least, O2 would have to increase its available bandwidth by more than 11 times. Do you really think that’s going to happen any time soon? In the meantime, any number of people, from one to one million, can receive a terrestrial broadcast of that same event, right now, today.