Connect with us

The Death of Web Radio?

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Brandon D Cartwright, Apr 17, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. The Death of Web Radio?

    On April 16, right in the midst of the NAB2007 broadcasters
    conference, the Copyright Royalty Board upheld its earlier decision to
    impose higher royalty rates on Web radio stations. The stations will
    have to cough up these royalty payments – 300% to 1,200% higher than
    the fees they are used to paying -- retroactively. Unless Congress
    gets involved, that will mean the death of many Web radio stations,
    whose revenues will fall short of these royalty payments.

  2. or move offshore.
  3. So listen to the Beeb, or Radio(insert Non US country here)

    xpost to removed

  4. Obviously you don't understand the issues involved or are quite happy
    to see creative and diversity strangled by conglomerates.

    Before this ruling was handed down, the vast majority of webcasters
    were barely making ends meet as Internet radio advertising revenue is
    just beginning to develop. Without a doubt most Internet radio
    services will go bankrupt and cease webcasting if this royalty rate is
    not reversed by the Congress, and webcasters’ demise will mean a great
    loss of creative and diverse radio. Surviving webcasters will need
    sweetheart licenses that major record labels will be only too happy to
    offer, so long as the webcaster permits the major label to control the
    programming and playlist. Is that the Internet radio you care to

    As you know, the wonderful diversity of Internet radio is enjoyed by
    tens of millions of Americans and provides promotional and royalty
    opportunities to independent labels and artists that are not available
    to them on broadcast radio. What you may not know is that in just the
    last year Internet radio listening jumped dramatically, from 45
    million listeners per month to 72 million listeners each month.
    Internet radio is already popular and it is already benefiting
    thousands of artists who are finding new fans online every day.

    Action must be taken to stop this faulty ruling from destroying the
    future of Internet radio that so many millions of listeners depend on
    each day. Instead of relying on lawyers filing appeals in the CRB and
    the courts, the SaveNetRadio Coalition has been formed to represent
    every webcaster, every Net Radio listener, and every artist who enjoys
    and benefits from this medium. Please join our fight for the
    preservation of Internet radio.
  5. I fear the days of pirate radio ships are over.
    Maybe the freedom of the Internet as we have
    known it is dying.

  6. Obviously you don't understand that Martin Griffith isn't in the US
    and probably doesn't listen to US radio stations, so it will not affect
    him in any way.

    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
  7. The whole point of Web Radio is that its
    irrelevant where you are listening from.

    Like millions world wide his choice is being restricted, the
    alternative genres available are being restricted.

    This affects him whether he realizes it or not.

    Are you so sanguine about the likes of Rupert Murdoch controlling all
    media outlets?
  8. Don Bowey

    Don Bowey Guest

    Are you referring to the freedom to not pay royalties, stealing from the
    artists, or do you have some other one in mind?
  9. Well, I do listen to KUSC, even though I'm in Spain, but there are
    plenty more choices that are not US based


  10. I don't really give a shit. There is nothing fit to watch on TV, and
    very little to listen to on the radio. HDTV is coming? Who cares?
    Streaming radio feeds from broadcast stations already pay royalties for
    the music. WSM, the station I listen to on line replaces their broadcast
    commercials with spots made specifically for their internet stream. A
    lot of the music they play was recorded live in their studios over the
    past 80 years, and they own all rights to air it.

    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
  11. Of course,I just think it's a shame that all the small independent
    stations are being crushed with scarcely any comment .

    It looks like Internet telephony is being crushed too.

    Verizon ruling threatens all VoIP companies claim
    If Vonage infringes, so does everyone, says expert.

    Two Verizon patents that Vonage was found to infringe are invalid, and
    if allowed to stand, could threaten all VoIP services, a telecoms
    industry veteran has said.

    Two of the three Verizon patents a jury upheld in a March decision
    were described in a standards group called the VoIP Forum before
    Verizon filed for the patents, said Daniel Berninger, who had a hand
    in launching Vonage but now works as a telecom analyst for Tier 1
    Research. The VoIP Forum described the name translation
    call-processing step in an open standard developed in 1996, and
    Verizon applied for the two patents in March 1997 and February 2000,
    he said.

    Verizon's patents focus on using name translation to connect VoIP
    calls to traditional telephone networks. But without name translation,
    no VoIP calls could be completed, and all VoIP companies are in danger
    of getting sued, Berninger said. "If you translate these patents so
    ridiculously broadly, then there's nothing left," he said. "Everybody


    Michael Geist warnedof this sort of thing but it'screeping in
    incrementally under the radar IMHO.

    Towards a two-tier internet

    The egalitarian nature of the internet is under threat, argues
    internet law professor Michael Geist.

    Internet service providers (ISPs) always seem to get the first call
    when a problem arises on the internet.

    Lawmakers want them to assist with investigations into cyber crime,
    parents want them to filter out harmful content, consumers want them
    to stop spam, and copyright holders want them to curtail infringement.
    Despite the urge to hold providers accountable for such activities,
    the ISP community has been remarkably successful in maintaining a
    position of neutrality, the digital successor, in spirit and often in
    fact, to the common carrier phone company.

    Adopting this approach has required strict adherence to a cardinal
    rule often referred to as "network neutrality." This principle holds
    that ISPs transport bits of data without discrimination, preference,
    or regard for content.

    The network neutrality principle has served ISPs, internet firms and
    internet users well. It has enabled ISPs to plausibly argue that they
    function much like common carriers and therefore should be exempt from
    liability for the content that passes through their systems.

    Websites, e-commerce companies, and other innovators have also relied
    on network neutrality, secure in the knowledge that the network treats
    all companies, whether big or small, equally. That approach enables
    those with the best products and services, not the deepest pockets, to
    emerge as the market winners.

    Internet users have similarly benefited from the network neutrality
    principle. They enjoy access to greater choice in goods, services, and
    content regardless of which ISP they use.

    While ISPs may compete based on price, service, or speed, they have
    not significantly differentiated their services based on availability
    of internet content or applications, which remains the same for all.

    In short, network neutrality has enabled ISPs to invest heavily in new
    infrastructure, fostered greater competition and innovation, and
    provided all internet users with equal access to a dizzying array of

    Challenges ahead

    Notwithstanding its benefits, in recent months ISPs have begun to chip
    away at the principle, shifting toward a two-tiered internet that
    would enable them to prioritise their own network traffic over that of
    their competitors.
    Recent developments in the US and Canada suggest that ISPs may
    go even further in developing a two-tiered internet that
    differentiates between different types of services and content
    Michael Geist, University of Ottawa

    The two-tiered approach is taking shape in various forms in different
    parts of the world.

    In the developing world, where there is frequently limited
    telecommunications competition, many countries have begun blocking
    internet telephony services in order to protect the incumbent telecoms

    This approach, which has occurred in countries such as Panama, Oman,
    United Arab Emirates, and Mexico, reduces competitive choices for
    telecommunications services and cuts off consumers from one of the
    fastest growing segments of the internet.

    In Europe, some ISPs have similarly begun to block access to internet
    telephony services. For example, this summer reports from Germany
    indicated that Vodafone had begun to block Voice over IP (Voip)
    traffic, treating the popular Skype program as "inappropriate

    European ISPs have also faced mounting pressure to block access to
    peer-to-peer systems such as BitTorrent, which are widely used to
    share both authorised and unauthorised content.

    The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and the IFPI
    (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) are pushing
    European ISPs to implement filtering technology to block services and
    sites that the associations believe are "substantially dedicated to
    illegal file sharing or download services".

    In fact, the content industries have even suggested that European ISPs
    limit the amount of bandwidth that can be used by consumers.

    Issues of priorities

    Recent developments in the US and Canada suggest that ISPs may go even
    further in developing a two-tiered internet that differentiates
    between different types of services and content.

    North American ISPs have also begun to use their network position to
    unfairly disadvantage internet telephony competition. For example,
    Canadian cable provider Shaw now offers a premium Voip service that
    promises to prioritise internet telephony traffic for a monthly fee.

    The potential implications of such a service are obvious. The use of
    competing services will require a supplemental fee, while Shaw will be
    free to waive the charge for its own service.

    In the US, earlier this year at least one ISP briefly blocked
    competing internet telephony traffic until the Federal Communications
    Commission ordered it to cease the practice.

    While ISPs once avoided content intervention, even that now seems
    possible. This summer, Telus, another Canadian ISP, blocked access to
    a pro-union website named Voices For Change during a contentious
    labour dispute.

    The company has since indicated that it was a one-time event, though
    in the process it also blocked more than 600 additional websites from
    the U.S. and Australia hosted at the same IP address.

    Alarm bells

    Canadian customers of Rogers, Canada's largest cable ISP, have
    speculated for months that the company has begun to block access to
    BitTorrent as well as the downloading of podcasts from services such
    as iTunes.

    While Rogers initially denied the charges, it now acknowledges that it
    uses "traffic shaping" to prioritise certain online activity. As a
    result, applications that Rogers deems to be a lower priority may
    cease to function effectively.

    Moreover, blocking services, websites, and certain applications may
    not be the end game. Some ISPs see the potential for greater revenue
    by charging websites or services for priority access to their

    In the US, BellSouth Chief Technology Officer executive William L
    Smith, recently mused about the potential to charge a premium to
    websites for prioritisation downloading, noting that Yahoo could pay
    to load faster than Google.

    Reports last week indicated that BellSouth and AT&T are now lobbying
    the US Congress for the right to create a two-tiered internet, where
    their own internet services would be transmitted faster and more
    efficiently than those of their competitors.

    These developments should send alarm bells to internet companies,
    users, and regulators worldwide.

    While prioritising websites or applications may hold some economic
    promise, the lack of broadband competition and insufficient
    transparency surrounding these actions will rightly lead to growing
    calls for regulatory reform that grants legal protection for the
    principle of network neutrality.

    Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
    E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.
  12. Mike Monett

    Mike Monett Guest

    That's very nice to hear.

    Isn't the US in the process of using trade agreements to force other
    countries to enact the same copyright laws?


    Mike Monett
  13. dont you mean
    An Honest politician stays bought

  14. Mike Monett

    Mike Monett Guest

    Very good:)


    Mike Monett
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day