Wasn't internet radio killed last year?

KG Writes in:

I thought internet radio was killed last year. What gives?

SomaFM and most other internet broadcasters have technically been operating "out of compliance" (that is, we're not paying the royalties we are supposed to be paying). At some point, we can't keep doing this... someone will sue us for copyright infringement. SoundExchange has informally agreed to not sue any broadcasters who continue negotiations with them, that's why stations are still on the air. Other large services like iMeem and Last.FM have made direct deals with the large record labels, in most cases resulting in the "Big 4" record labels owning a part of those companies. (And with that ownership comes influence over the music they feature.)

So making a deal with the big record labels is not acceptable for most broadcasters who strive to be independent in the music they broadcast.

We have continued to negotiate with SoundExchange (the agency that collects the royalties) over the last year, and are close to a settlement. Originally, one problem was that a SoundExchange settlement would only cover their members, and not apply to all music as the CRB ruling did, unless congress acted to codify any settlements. HR. 7084 which was recently signed into law, does exactly that: it tells the CRB that they have to codify any settlement internet broadcasters and SoundExchange agree to. This is the only way we can get the royalties reduced to a reasonable level.

Internet radio is running on borrowed time. But even without a deal, big, venture-capital funded services like Pandora will likely survive in a slightly altered form: they'll have to make deals with all the major labels which will cause them to lose some of their independence. But small stations like SomaFM will be put out of business: either by lawsuits from the RIAA if we continue to operate without paying the royalty fees or more likely by just not having enough money to continue our operations after paying all these royalties.

H.R.7084 passed in the Senate!

9/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

Good work everyone!

NAB drops opposition to HR 7084

I just got a call from Dennis Wharton at NAB, who told me that the NAB is now supporting the bill.

From what I'm reading on cnet and a few other places, NAB was concerned that they wouldn't get their own deal in time and didn't want to have web-only broadcasters get an unfair advantage over them. But a compromise they asked for was simple: extend the date of the bill to Feb 15th, 2009, and they're all for it.

No problem! The date extension is useful to other groups as well who are trying to negotiate deals, and the only possible opposition of the date extension would possibly be SoundExchange- just because they want to see this settled ASAP and not to continue dragging on.

Zoe Lofgren supporting the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008

Zoe Lofgren (D - CA) on the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008. It passed in the house, but still needs to pass in the Senate, and the NAB is opposing it.

Don't forget: we still need to get it passed in the Senate!

Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 passes in the House!

Thanks to everyone who called their representatives. The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 has passed the house, now it's onto the Senate. We'll need to call them in the next 24 hours and ask for the support of "HR 7084, The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008" (it's still called HR even though it's in the Senate).

Look up your Senator's phone number and call them. You can leave a voice message after hours.

All you need to say is "Please support HR 7084, The Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, in the Senate. I support internet radio and want to see a fair royalty agreed upon."

The Senate will resume Monday morning, September 29th, and will consider this in the morning. If we leave messages this weekend, we can show that there is considerable grass roots support for it, and it will greatly lessen the impact of the NAB's opposition to it. And calling on Monday as well is a good thing to do; as there is a good chance it won't be passed first thing.

Summary & Background

H.R. 7084 contains technical amendments to the Small Webcasting Settlement Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-321) which will permit commercial and noncommercial webcasters to negotiate royalty rates and terms other than those determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) in its May 2007 decision. That decision was the basis for legislation introduced last year and is currently subject to a legal challenge at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has, thus far, upheld the market rates and terms set by the CRB.

The principal purpose of the legislation is to facilitate a reduction in Internet streaming rates, something H.R. 7084 will permit to be voluntarily negotiated by willing parties rather than imposed by Congress. Essentially, this bill will allow SoundExchange, the organization which collects royalties on behalf of the music industry, to reach a settlement with the Digital Media Association, the national trade organization for the online audio and video industries.

NAB opposing Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008

According to CNET: NAB, the National Association of Broadcasters, is opposing the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008:

(CNET quoting a NAB representative) "NAB has concerns related to Congress attempting to fast-track a bill introduced less than 24 hours ago that could have serious implications for broadcasters, webcasters, and consumers of music. NAB spent more than a year trying to work out an equitable agreement on webcasting rates, only to be stonewalled by SoundExchange and the record labels. We will continue to work with policymakers on a solution that is fair to all parties."

I don't get it, you'd think this would be in AM/FM's interests as well, as it will let NAB negotiate a deal and have it codified as well. This doesn't limit deals to a single, specific organization.

Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 introduced

DiMA and SaveNetRadio announced that H.R. 7084: “Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008” was introduced, and clears a path for private negotiations to continue while Congress is in recess.

Basically this bill says: when the parties agree to a settlement, the CRB publishes it in the Federal Register, and it becomes an option qualified webcasters can elect, by re-wording the Small Commercial Webcasters provisions from 2002 to be applied to all webcasters, and for the period of 11 years from 1/1/2006.

So effectively, this will allow any SoundExchange settlement to be codified, and apply to all sound recordings, not just those represented by SoundExchange. I think is a good thing.

Trade organization DiMA (who represents the larger internet broadcasters like AOL and Pandora) says:

This bill does not affect the scope of performance rights or any underlying copyright law, and it does not impact broadcasters. It only clears the path for private negotiations to continue while Congress is in recess. It is scheduled to be considered today under Suspension of the Rules in the House.

I just spoke with John Simson and he confirmed that SoundExchange supports this as well.

Kirt Hanson in RAIN says ``H.R. 7084 is a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressmen Inslee, Conyers, Smith, Berman, and Manzullo and apparently supported by SoundExchange, the RIAA, NPR, and DiMA. It is scheduled to be considered today under Suspension of the Rules in the House.`` http://www.kurthanson.com

Here's the Save Net Radio release:

WASHINGTON D.C. –Today, Congress introduced legislation that will provide critical life support into the negotiations regarding the drastically increased performance royalties for Internet webcasters. H.R. 7084, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, authorizes SoundExchange, on behalf of copyright owners and performers, to negotiate an alternative royalty agreement before the end of the year with any Internet radio service. This legislation will benefit all webcasters, including NPR, college webcasters, small webcasters and broadcasters who put their stations on the Internet. Because Internet radio royalties operate under a government license, Congressional authority is required to allow any negotiated settlement to take effect.

“Passage of this bipartisan legislation will ensure that the progress in negotiations over the last several weeks between webcasters and SoundExchange can continue and, we hope, lead to a solution that allows Internet radio to survive and thrive,” said Jake Ward, spokesperson for the SaveNetRadio Coalition. “The SaveNetRadio coalition, and the thousands of webcasters, artists and Internet radio listeners it represents, thanks Reps. Inslee, Berman, Smith, Conyers and Manzullo for their sponsorship of this critical legislation and greatly appreciates their continued attention and leadership on this issue.”

H.R. 7084 is scheduled to be considered today under Suspension of the Rules in the House. This bill does not affect the scope of performance rights or any underlying copyright law, and it does not impact broadcasters, it only clears the path for private negotiations to continue while Congress is in recess.

BACKGROUND:

A March 2, 2007, decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), a division of the Library of Congress charged with establishing performance royalty rates for “digital radio” broadcasters, increased rates for webcasters by an unjustified and unprecedented 300 to 1200 percent.

Since the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) increase royalty rates for webcasters 16 months ago, there has been an immediate and devastating effect on Internet radio services. Three of the most-listened-to services (AOL Radio, Yahoo! Radio and Pandora) have either left the business, limited listener access to their services, or announced they are likely to shut down in the near future if royalties are not significantly reduced. Just as importantly from the perspective of the artists that depend upon Internet radio, recent Arbitron data demonstrates clearly that royalty-paying webcast listening has diminished substantially since the CRB decision.

Legislation introduced last year to correct the discrepancy between Internet radio and cable and satellite radio providers by establishing an equal rate for all digital radio – cable, satellite and internet radio – at 7.5% of revenue is still pending with more than 150 Congressional cosponsors. The Internet Radio Equality Act (S. 1353/H.R. 2060) was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sam Brownback (R-KA) and in the House by Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Don Manzullo (R-IL).

The internet radio royalty issue is NOT settled, as some news sources have reported

The Internet Radio proceeding has not been settled. We are still trying to get a settlement with SoundExchange which can be approved by the CRB judges.

This ruling only applies to Section 115 of the copyright law, and covers "interactive streaming music and limited digital downloads," and it's only the royalties that cover the "composition" of the recording, not the sound recording. Interactive streaming is defined as music on demand, such as Rhapsody or Napster, and not services like Pandora or SomaFM.

Basically, this settled things for Rhapsody, iTunes, Napster and a few others; it doesn't affect streaming radio stations at all. :-( Our issue is with SoundExchange over the "sound recording" part of the copyright royalties, we already have a suitable agreement with the licensing agencies that handle the "composition" (BMI, SESAC, ASCAP).

Attorney David Oxenford discusses this in his blog:

While many press reports (at least some of which have already been pulled) have concluded that this is a settlement of the Internet Radio royalties proceeding - that is wrong. The Internet radio royalty proceeding involves Section 114, not Section 115, of the Copyright Act. Section 114 deals with a royalty paid to the performers, not the composers.

And it's not about paying the RIAA. The RIAA was on the other side of the table from the music publishers. Because Sound Recording copyright owners have to pay the composers when they release tracks (on CD or digitally). So in this case, the RIAA is the buyer, where as with internet radio, the RIAA is in the position of the seller (at least they claim to represent 80% of the sellers).

Internet radio is still in trouble. This did not solve things.

Speaking on Panel at AES show in San Francisco 10/5/08

I'll be speaking at The Audio Engineering Society show in San Francisco, Sunday October 5, 2008; 9am - 10:45am. Yes, they cruelly scheduled me for a Sunday morning time slot!

The panel is titled, "Internet Streaming - Audio Quality, Measurement, & Monitoring". I'll mostly be talking about audio quality issues and a bit about monitoring (SomaFM developed a bunch of in-house tools to monitor our streams which work pretty well).

The official description: Streaming has become a provider of audio and video content to the public. Now that the public has recognized the medium, the provider needs to deliver the content with a quality comparable to other mediums.

The Moderator is David Bialik. Panelists include Geir Skaaden, Neural Audio; Skip Pizzi, Radio World; Ray Archie, CBS Radio; Rusty Hodge, SomaFM; and Benjamin Larson, Streambox Inc.

Can Payola can save Internet Radio?

Doug Perlson writing in Silicon Alley Insider thinks that Payola can save Internet Radio from the high royalties that we currently face.

From strictly a financial-gain perspective, he may be right.

But for broadcasters looking for a long-term sustainable business, and not a short term financial gain (such as getting bought out by a larger company), this approach will not have success.

First off, "Payola" is not illegal in the net-radio space. In fact, it's already happening lots of places. The big labels have equity positions in several of the largest webcasters. You don't think those labels are influencing what gets played? Of course they do.

SoundExchange (the agency that collects the royalties for internet radio) is even encouraging this behavior, suggesting that stations work with labels to play the music that labels will let them use without royalties... except those deals are always more complex than that. (Basically, they give the labels control over what gets played. "You can use this particular music for free, only if you give x number of plays to these other tracks.")

I'm happy that some of the larger guys, like Pandora, have demonstrated their opposition to this. But many others, who are proponents of "direct licensing deals" are already playing the Payola game.

Music should be chosen on its artistic merit, not because of a opportunistic financial decision.

Payola, while technically illegal, has still been happening at AM/FM radio stations (under the guise of "independent promotion"). Many FM radio stations were so reliant on "promo money" that it was a significant part of their annual operating budgets- especially in mid and smaller markets. And while this practice has come under fire and largely discontinued just recently, many variations on the game sill exist, and you're fooling yourself if you think that labels have stopped using money to influence program and music directors.

Many people (including myself) believe that this is what has caused consumers to turn away from commercial radio: programmers were playing what they were paid to play rather than choosing the best material to play. So commercial FM became the land of the safe, proven hits of the past and the crap that the labels were paying to get played.

The people who say this would work for net radio have never been on the receiving end of the music promotion industry. There are tons of crappy records that labels (big and small) would happily pay to get played on the radio. But listeners are smart, and have plenty of options to choose what they want to listen to. They'll just start "tuning out" if this happens.

Will Comcast's streaming caps impact SomaFM listeners?

I've gotten a lot of questions lately about Comcast's streaming caps, and how they might affect listening to SomaFM?

Comcast's cap averages out to about 770 Kbps continuous average bandwidth usage, or about half the capacity of a T1 line. Or about 6 times the bandwidth required to listen to SomaFM. So you could listen to SomaFM 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and use only about 1/6th of the bandwidth you're allowed to use under the new Comcast rules.

For most users, Comcast's limits won't affect them. The main people who will be affected are those who download and share lots of files. Even people who use lots of streaming video likely won't be affected by these limits.

So as far as listening to SomaFM goes, the limits being imposed by Comcast shouldn't affect you.

SXSW Panel Idea proposals

I have proposed a couple panels for SXSW, which have been

Making Music Sound Better Online: Improving Flow and Presentation: Most music services present music like a jukebox, not a professional DJ. Songs stacked serially, not flowing together for various reasons: tonal balance, loudness levels, speed and intensity. We discuss improving that presentation: automated mixing and segue tools; "harmonic key mixing" tracks; improving sound quality of MP3s and alternative Codecs; audio processing systems keeping subjective loudness and tone consistent.

One thing I want to discuss on this panel is broadcast audio processing, and the FM "loudness wars", and why "loudness" doesn't really matter for internet audio but why consistent audio levels are really important. (It's one of my pet peeves, and there are a lot of big services that don't get that right now.)

Rewriting the DMCA: How to Improve Section 114: This panel will discuss the ugly bits of the Section 114 compulsory license for digital/internet music usage, and what parts are in it for historic reasons that don't apply in todays world; as well as changes that both users of the licenses (webcasters) and content providers (artists, labels) would agree to.

Many people agree that certain aspects of Section 114 are obsolete. Others think the DMCA should provide more protection and compensation for creators. Some want to simplify the rules, and others think it doesn't go far enough.

Imagine we could re-write Section 114 today, knowing what we now know. How would it be different? What would be the same?

Internet radio sites push for lower royalties for artists

Austin American-Statesman:

Internet radio sites push for lower royalties for artists

"Satellite and cable radio stations pay royalties at a rate of less than 15 percent - far less than Internet sites - Kennedy said. Traditional AM/FM radio stations are exempt from paying royalties.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has sponsored one of the Internet radio bills, said the royalty fee schedule improperly imposes the highest rates on the newest forms of technology.

'We are allowing the royalty process to serve as a tax on technology and that is discrimination against innovation,' he said."

Lots of information in the full article, the above was just a brief quote.

San Francisco Music Tech Conference Video

I moderated a panel at the San Francisco Music Tech conference on a bunch of different streaming technology issues.

The plan was for this to be a discussion panel about where streaming technologies are going, and what can be taken advantage of now, and what's coming down the pipe soon. We can also talk about what is really needed, vs what "solutions" that the market is pushing right now.

You can't really see me in this video, only my hands in the left side of the frame!

Left to right:

John Richey - Wireless Music Delivery Expert, Apple (he's half out of the frame, sorrt).

Greg Ogonowski - VP of New Product Development, Orban

Tim Pozar - CEO, Late Night Software and former VP of Engineering, UnitedLayer

Chris Grigg - Head of Standards, Beatnick

iPhone streams updated for 2.0/3G

Until today, our iPhone/iPod Touch streams were only working on the current iPhones with the 1.x software. Now thanks to some testing by Mark Malone at Apple, we've updated our iPhone streams to work with the 2.0 software and the 3G iPhones coming out on Friday. So now our streams work on both old and new iPhones and iPod touches. While I haven't had a chance to test the 3G data network with a new iPhone, you should be able to use the WiFi streams when you're on the ATT 3G network. I'll be interested to see how it works out!

We rolled out iPhone streaming today!

After a lot of testing, we rolled out iPhone streaming tonight. I'm still not completely happy with the look of our iPhone mini-site so you might see some changes in the near future, but rather than wait until everything was perfect, I decided to release it now.

So now when you go to somafm.com on your iPhone, you get an iPhone-specific site with links for both EDGE (32-56k) and WiFi (128k) streams.

Save Net Radio Press Release

INTERNET RADIO MAKES A COMEBACK IN THE SENATE The Grassroots Movement to Save Internet Radio from Extinction is Reinvigorated by Senate Judiciary Committee – Brownback Offers Industry Saving Legislation

Save Net Radio Press Release

WASHINGTON D.C. – Legislation introduced in the House and the Senate last year to bring parity and equality to the new radio market made a comeback today during a Senate Judiciary mark-up. The Internet Radio Equality Act (IREA), which would establish a flat rate for performance royalty fees paid by cable, satellite and Internet radio providers, was offered as an amendment to the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S. 2913) by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) during a scheduled mark-up of the intellectual property legislation today.

The amendment, which was later withdrawn, signals the renewed efforts of Net radio webcasters to reverse an unprecedented 2007 rate increase by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) that threatens to bankrupt the industry. Expressing his “strong support for internet radio,” Chairman Leahy welcomed future consideration of Internet radio royalties.

“It has been more than a year since the CRB raised the cost of webcasting to an untenable amount,” said Jake Ward, spokesperson for the SaveNetRadio campaign, “and all we are is a year older. Last year, more than two million people called on Congress to take action, and 150 Members in the House and Senate heard them and signed on in support of the Internet Radio Equality Act, but we still don’t have a solution. In the past year, rates have been set for net radio’s direct competition, satellite and cable radio providers, at a rate three and four times less than their proposals to Internet radio. It is disappointing and absurd that while Net radio is fighting for its survival, the industry has been put at an even greater disadvantage. This is unacceptable and hardly the good faith negotiations the House Commerce committee directed SoundExchange to participate in more than nine months ago.”

“Senator Brownback has been a staunch ally of small businesses and independent artists whose livelihoods depend on Internet radio since this fight began a year ago,” Ward continued. ”The offering of the amendment today and Senator Brownback’s leadership and dedication to equality should serve as a reminder to other Members that Internet radio and its tens of millions of supporters are not going away quietly. We should all be in this together. This continued battle is perlexing but we are committed to fighting for fairness – fairness for artists, fairness for independent labels, and fairness for webcasters. In the coming weeks and months, SaveNetRadio will be directing our formidable grassroots to support legislation that ensures artists are fairly compensated while leveling the playing field for webcasters.”

Following a March 2, 2007, decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), a division of the Library of Congress charged with establishing performance royalty rates for “digital radio” broadcasters, to increase rates for webcasters by an unjustified and unprecedented 300 to 1200 percent, a national coalition of webcasters, independent artists and Net radio listeners began petitioning Congress to take action. The Internet Radio Equality Act (S. 1353/H.R. 2060), which would set the rate for all digital radio – cable, satellite and internet radio – at 7.5% of revenue, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sam Brownback (R-KA) and in the House by Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Don Manzullo (R-IL).

In November of 2007, SoundExchange formally proposed that cable radio services pay royalties between 7.25% and 7.5% of their revenue to sound recording copyright owners and recording artists. The following month, the Copyright Royalty Board, citing market constraints and a desire not to disrupt the industry, further reduced the royalty rate for satellite radio to 6% of broadcaster revenue –increased incrementally to 8% over the next five years. Cable and satellite radio generated $2 billion in 2006 while Internet radio produced less than $150 million. Under the current CRB ruling webcasters would pay an average 30% of revenue in royalty fees – and as much as 150% in some cases.

Radio And Internet Newsletter reports: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT WEBCASTING ROYALTIES

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT WEBCASTING ROYALTIES:

"At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee this morning, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) revived the issue of Internet radio performance royalties by proposing to add the Internet Radio Equality Act as an amendment to an unrelated copyright bill. Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), while expressing his support for webcasters, countered by suggesting that the committee examine the issue in June in the context of broadcast radio performance royalties.

[RAIN will] have more details as they emerge. You can also check the SaveNetRadio website here: http://www.savenetradio.org."

I guess it may be time to go back to Washington DC again. Perhaps this time we can get some traction on that bill.

SanFran MusicTech Summit

I'll be moderating a panel on new developments in streaming at the SanFran MusicTech Summit this Thursday, May 8th at the Hotel Kabuki. Our panel will start at 1:50pm in the Osaka Room (the downstairs room behind the Spring Room). With me will be:

John Richey - Wireless Music Delivery Expert, Apple
Greg Ogonowski - VP of New Product Development, Orban
Chris Grigg - Head of Standards, Beatnick
Tim Pozar - VP of Engineering, UnitedLayer

We're going to be talking about delivery methods. New codecs. Streaming to mobile devices. Internet radio hardware devices. How to determine if you really need a content delivery network. It should be real fun.

Here's a blurb about the summit:

The SanFran MusicTech Summit will bring together digital thought leaders from the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as from all around the country to the region which currently leads the way in innovating (both socially, and technologically) new ways of interacting with both music, and musicians. We will be working long term to help enable a sustainable, ongoing, Northern California based music and related technology market.

Register for the Summit here

EVDO, Wireless Performance, Radio Remote broadcasts and violating your terms of service

As I sit here in my Las Vegas Motel Room (the Best Western Mardi Gras, selected only on the basis of price and proximity to the Las Vegas Convention Center, where NAB is taking place) I'm thinking about how bad wireless performance is in general.

Right now, I'm typing over EVDO, because the hotel internet - powered by Lodgenet's StayOnline - is completely dysfunctional ("timeout connecting to network"). This is the same StayOnline that gave us so much trouble at the Marriott in Austin when we were trying to cover SXSW. I guess I should learn never to depend on the in-room wireless internet at most hotels/motels, because if the hotel is busy at all - the network will be unusable.

But, we have an EVDO card! We bring our own bandwidth with us rather than rely on the hotel internet, because that way we can always have internet access over "Sprint's EVDO Rev. A networks with data speeds up to 3.1 Mbps!" Only it doesn't work that way. In fact, these days, we're lucky if we get 500kb down. Here's what I get from the Speakeasy Speed Test:

Not too impressive.

You see the problem happens when there are too many EVDO users. And for Sprint (like Verizon), that means all the people that have their multimedia phones. And there are more and more of those out there all the time, fighting for the finite amount of bandwidth at each cell site.

We really saw this last weekend, when we webcast from Yuri's Night. At first, the webcast worked great. We had plenty of speed. But as all the geeks started arriving for the big party that evening, the network started getting slower and slower. By 8pm, that stream (from Stage 2) rebuffered so much it was pretty much unusable.

We were doing the main stage broadcasts from WayneCo's Bus which is equipped with a Motosat satellite internet uplink, which usually only gets about 256kb max for uplinks, unless you pay a hefty additional fee (which uses multiple transponders). So we didn't have enough bandwidth to stream both from the bus, and had to resort to EVDO for the other stage.

WiFi was also out of the question. With 5 SSIDs visible, the only reliable one was the backhaul network for the ticket booths, and not connected to the internet. The public internet was so overloaded that it often disappeared for minutes at a time. And only once were we able to maintain a connection, and that was before the event started. So we couldn't WiFi between our encoding gear at Stage 2 and the bus.

Everyone is always making promises of the happy wonderful infinite bandwidth wireless future. But it's still a way off. In a crowded situation, WiFi is about as useful as a CB radio, OK for really short distances, but for useful distances (200 feet or more) it falls apart. In this case, we could barely get 40 feet out of the WiFi base station in the bus to a remote machine. Sprint's EVDO works great sometime (4am in the morning in places where there aren't many users, for example) but lately in many different places we've used it, the service is over subscribed and slow, slow, slow.

Verizon's EVDO works just as badly as Sprint.

Wayne de Geere, who graciously provided his bus as our base of operations, has a Verizon EVDO, which worked about as poorly as the Sprint one. We chose the Sprint service because of Verizon's Terms of Service actually prohibit streaming audio and/or video and updating webcams and pretty much anything actually useful you'd do with their service. Sprint's restrictions are pretty much limited to things that violate the law.

Bottom line: we should have brought lots of wire. And run 600 ohm balanced audio from the stages back to where we were. Or installed wired ethernet connections to each stage. Or used something like a Marti SRPT 30 analog remote pickup unit, the technology that terrestrial radio broadcasters have been using for 30+ years.

Low tech, old fashioned, but tried and true.

Multicasting from the archives

Me, 5-Mar-99: ``Multicasting. It's close. And it is going to revolutionize internet radio.``

Man, I got that one wrong! Multicasting never caught on, not because the technology was bad but because there were never any business reasons for ISPs to enable multicast support in their backbone routers... there was no financial incentive for ISPs to support it; rather it was something that would ultimately cost them money to support it, and there was no way for them to effectively get paid for carrying the multicast traffic on their networks.

There was (and still is) no settlement model, hence no business incentive for multicasting. That's the main reason it never took off.

Nine years ago....

Nine years ago, "Soma FM" appeared in the Shoutcast.com listings; it's when we turned on our first server (with thanks to Sam Habash who setup our first server at Best.com).

Here's how I described our first channel: ``a mix of ambient groove and electronica with obscure 70s music and the occasional drop in``.

Within a year, we'd have 3 channels: Groove Salad, Drone Zone and Secret Agent.

We didn't register SomaFM.com until Feb of 2000, and the website - more like a "web page" - appeared around March of 2000.

Internet Music Radio and Track Plays Chart 4.8 Billion Listening Hours in 2007

According to AccuStream Research: online music radio (live streaming channels and streamed individual track plays) generated 4.85 billion total listening hours in 2007:

Total listening hours averaged 404.2 million hours per month (excluding downloaded music), compared to a 320.5 million hour average in 2006, including leading music subscription services such as Napster, Yahoo Music and Rhapsody.

In 2007, SomaFM averaged about 5 million listener hours a month. (We've been averaging 6.4 million per month since December 2007.) If those numbers are right, then 1.23% of all net radio listening is to SomaFM!

They go on to say:

The two leading subscription services combined captured approximately 4% of listening hour share in 2007.

The two leading subscription services is apparently includes Napster, Yahoo Music and Rhapsody.

Now I think these numbers are for US only listeners. If that's the case, our US numbers are only about 40% of our total listeners. Still that gives us about half a percent of all US radio listeners, and one can extrapolate that we have about 1/4th the audience that Napster, Yahoo Music and Rhapsody each have.

Frankly, I find that a bit hard to believe, unless you factor in that most people listen to us for much longer times than they listen to the subscription services, or else the subscription services don't have that many customers.

Regardless, it's very exciting to see that we've been able to make such a dent in net radio listening. I hope we can keep playing the music our listeners love, and hope we continue to find new listeners and grow.

via Yahoo Biz

SXSW Panel: The Trials and Tribulations of Using Music Online

Be sure to come by the panel I'm on at SXSW: The Trials and Tribulations of Using Music Online.

This panel will discuss the usage of music for various online formats, including (but not limited to) podcasting, blog MP3 postings, internet radio, and vlogs (or other video). This session will address the different copyrights, licensing, and royalties associated with different types of use. Learn how and why you need to get copyright and/or licensing clearance for the music you use, and which clearances you need for which uses in order to operate legally. We will also discuss copyright royalties, royalty payments, and royalty collectors, including SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

Should be fun. If you've never met Richard Bengloff (who heads up A2IM and is on the SoundExchange board and will be on this panel), he's a great guy who is amazingly knowledgeable about the music business, and genuinely cares about artists and content creators. Rich and I don't always agree, but I learn something every time I talk to him.

I can't wait. The other folks on the panel are all great as well (Brian Zisk and Chris MacDonald) as well as our moderator Elise Nordling (who besides programming and hosting Indie Pop Rocks works for IODA, an online music licensing company).

Room 10
Tuesday, March 11th
3:30 pm - 4:30 pm
South by Southwest, Austin, TX

CRB sets satellite radio royalty rates.

and guess what? They're lower than internet radio!

AP is reporting:

``Satellite Radio will pay a performance license rate of 6 percent of certain revenue this year for sound recordings played over its network, according to Copyright Royalty Board decision`` and ``also will pay a performance license rate of 6 percent of gross revenue subject to the fees for 2008, which will then increase by 0.5 percent annually before reaching 8 percent in 2012.``

Just to put that into context, Net Radio up until 2006 paid 10-12% of their revenue. And of course, unless we get a deal from SoundExchange that's codified by Congress, most net stations are going to pay what amounts to 300-600% of their revenues. That's right: 3-6 TIMES their revenues.

Perhaps it is time to start turning up the heat on Congress again to do something?

No one is listening to over the air radio anymore.

Over the air radio continues to bleed listeners. Is is the technology? Is it the programming? Of course, I think it's the latter. Regardless, it's losing audience share. Why? More choices. And as soon as we have internet in cars, AM/FM listening will plummet even more.

Inside Radio 14-Nov-07 reports:

Summer book Persons Using Radio (PUR) numbers declined to their lowest level since Arbitron began keeping statistics in Fall 1998. Radio usage dropped in every cell except 50-54s. Steepest declines continue to be among teenagers and young adults, as their attention is increasingly diverted to other media. That’s especially true among males, with Men 18-24 and 18-34 cells posting the biggest year-over-year declines. But the crowded media world is also taking a toll on the 25-54 money demo, which fell 15.1-14.9. There’s also a disturbing trend among female demos. In the Summer book not a single female cell saw an increase in listening. All but two (50-54 and 65+) declined. Compare that to male demos. While older women mirror the trend of listening less, the Summer book shows Men 45-64 were listening to the radio more.

via Hear 2.0

USA Today: Internet radio providers "close to settlement"

While I won't publicly comment on any negotiations that may be going on between SomaFM, SoundExchange and the RIAA, I'm happy to say that this article in USA Today sums it up well:

Net radio's future, which looked dismal earlier in the year after new copyright royalties were instituted, is apparently back on track. The proposed fees were so high many stations said they would be forced to go out of business. But Hansen says stations and record labels have been negotiating a settlement and are close to coming to terms.