Comment Re:Nice, but... (Score 1) 368
> Yeah, until they want to start offering "Premium" channels.
I for one would welcome the ability to pay for commercial-free radio without having to invest in a company like Sirius or XM, who have uncertain futures and limited diversity (since all their content comes from one company in either case -- longterm, how is that likely to be any better than the homogenous crap that comes from clearchannel?)
Imagine a world where you can find channels that actually play things you're interested in, and things you've never heard before. Quality news not funded by advertisers but by listeners who want to hear what they have to say. Diversity would increase, since marketing dollars are conservative but people are less so.
Assuming the system has the ability to employ encryption, digital technology opens up the ability for stations to charge their listeners directly, resulting in a more efficient (overall lower cost) system since there are no marketing middlemen. Analog with digital allows users of both types to participate, much like sites such as live365 do now. I won't claim that the DRM aspects won't get scary once the RIAA gets into the picture, but hopefully that day is long(ish) off.
Diversity. A channel for news 24/7, and one for world music, and one for Rush Limbaugh since unfortunately some people want it, all because people will pay what marketers won't. Sign me up. And we know it's true too, because people already pay for several commercial-free stations in my area. It's difficult for those stations to make money right now because it's not simple for people to pay in small amounts, particularly when they're already getting the station for free. But with a free "teaser" channel full of commercials, there's a simple and direct incentive for people to contribute to stations they care about.
I'm totally excited, this was an announcement that broadsided me. I only hope we don't somehow manage to screw it all up.
