I've been thinking a lot about the RIAA/NAB push to get Congress to mandate that FM Receivers be built into handheld devices. I was letting the issue run around my head as I drove up to Smithville this morning
( Read more... )
Problem is, that isn't the reason that NAB is pushing for this. They're trying once again to level the playing field.
They tried to get Congress/the FCC to force webcast and streaming stations to pay higher royalty rates in an attempt to level the playing field - but it didn't work.
They tried to get Congress/the FCC to force Sirius XM to include HD Radio receivers in every Sirius/XM Satellite radio receiver. That didn't work either.
So instead of trying to innovate or let the industry evolve so that it *could* compete with Sirius XM or Pandora or Slacker Radio - they're again trying the 'level the playing field' approach.
I think there *is* a place for FM Radio - I just think that their operating model is severely outdated at this point. When the only way to compete is to hope and pray that Congress mandates *something* to level the playing field, then it's really time to sit back and come up with a new way to make it work.
And instead, the RIAA/NAB are clinging to the old model with both hands. And that's sad to see.
The other note is that FM is a horrible medium for anything other than audio modulation. Data transfer rates on FM are horrid - so this would only make sense for a 'weather radio' or 'Emergency Broadcast' type situation.
I have to ask, why do handheld devices need FM receivers in the first place?
That's like saying my computer needs an FM receiver or my microwave needs an FM receiver. What is the point? It's a bunch of people stuck on a dieing medium trying to force it on new technology.
Also radio does need to suck a lot less. Though I do enjoy Chicago's alt station 101.1 which has played more enjoyable music then any other station, satellite radio or not. I still only care to listen to it when I'm in our car.
Comments 5
Total agreement! I've completely stopped listening to the radio in Southern Ontario. I'm much happier with my satellite radio.
Reply
Reply
They tried to get Congress/the FCC to force webcast and streaming stations to pay higher royalty rates in an attempt to level the playing field - but it didn't work.
They tried to get Congress/the FCC to force Sirius XM to include HD Radio receivers in every Sirius/XM Satellite radio receiver. That didn't work either.
So instead of trying to innovate or let the industry evolve so that it *could* compete with Sirius XM or Pandora or Slacker Radio - they're again trying the 'level the playing field' approach.
I think there *is* a place for FM Radio - I just think that their operating model is severely outdated at this point. When the only way to compete is to hope and pray that Congress mandates *something* to level the playing field, then it's really time to sit back and come up with a new way to make it work.
And instead, the RIAA/NAB are clinging to the old model with both hands. And that's sad to see.
Reply
Reply
That's like saying my computer needs an FM receiver or my microwave needs an FM receiver. What is the point? It's a bunch of people stuck on a dieing medium trying to force it on new technology.
Also radio does need to suck a lot less. Though I do enjoy Chicago's alt station 101.1 which has played more enjoyable music then any other station, satellite radio or not. I still only care to listen to it when I'm in our car.
Reply
Leave a comment