Talk:Internet radio

WikiMedia Radio project

Is there a WikiMediaRadio project?

Quinobi 20:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject Radio. --PhantomS 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the page of the project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio Bilalak (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed formats

There should be more detail about the Microsoft and Real Audio formats since many sites still opt for those closed formats.

PolyGnome 01:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be ... but ... as a free and open environment, Wikipedia is more atuned to , shall we say, less proprietary structures and methods. Not that Real Audio is not ... or is it? Nevertheless, as is objectively declared, the Ogg Vorbis format might be a bit more meaningful. But hey... that's just one point of view. 65.240.51.122 05:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

agreed with Polygnome, but the reasons behind this usage have to be explained (computer monopolistic position of MS, streaming monopolistic historic position of real audio format, and not QoS (quality of services)) would be good idea to link to the software patent / free software debate. Izwalito 16:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

distinction between internet radio and podcast?

I came to this page to find out the difference between the two, but it is not made clear at all. The stated "It is not synonymous with podcasting which involves downloading and therefore copyright issues." makes no sense to me at all because obviously both (any) internet services require downloading. Wikipedia's definition: "to download is to receive data from a remote system, such as a webserver, FTP server, or other similar systems". I think the intro should be clarified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.106.218.106 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

It is possible that the definition of Downloading needs to be revisited, though I think "recieve" hints at the fundamental difference. However, I do NOT think this is a problem with this article, because I think most computer users make a clear distinction between downloading and streaming. Podcasting involves downloading, meaning the entire file must be received, stored, and opened in order to play it. radio is, on the other hand, a form of Streaming media, which, according to our entry, is defined as "multimedia that is continuously received by, and normally displayed to, the end-user whilst it is being delivered by the provider." Certainly different, certainly NOT the same as podcasting/downloading, and hopefully the answer to your question. Jfarber 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was unaware of the notion that explicitly retrieving a file from a remote location is a prerequisite to the act of "downloading", but if that's the common consensus, so be it. I think most of my initial confusion actually came from a failure to grasp the mechanism behind podcasting.

It's not that such retrieval is a prerequisite for downloading -- such retrieval IS downloading, as noted in the definition. For podcasting, one must download a particular type of file (the podcast itself, usually in .mp3 format). For Internet radio, after one listens to even a small portion of a radio stream, that small portion of the radio programming is already gone from your computer, even while you keep listening to the radio -- nothing has been retrieved/downloaded, merely listened to as it "streamed" through your computer. Hope that's clearer. Jfarber 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In my perception, there seems to be a lack of knowledge as to the meaning of streaming. Anyone considering streaming should realize that the computer clocks of sending and recieving systems are not necessarily running at the same rate are not necessarily synchronized. In order to avoid over- or under- runs cloacks at the sending and receiving and need to be synchronized. Naively pur: This begs the question: Who is the master clock?

Of course giving all the computing cycles and storage and memory management available on todays cheap hardware there is no need for a master clock, or is there?

Unfortunately, Joe SixPack is not a serial entrepreneur with zillions of dollars in the bank, so he worries about the cost of the toys he buys at Walmart.

Sorry guys, it seems infinite buffers go out of the window, so let's think about asynchronous sample rate conversion.

Anyway, if you talk about streaming think about time stamps, and if this is to difficult think about download and storage capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belvdme (talk • contribs) 21:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be incorrect now to differentiate between podcasts and internet radio in this way. A podcast can be streamed now just as an internet radio stream is (ie playing while it downloads in real time, and only temporarily saving to a memory cache). The biggest difference between internet radio and podcasting is that internet radio is a continuous stream, whereas, podcasts are audio files that are usually "episodes" and can be either downloaded or streamed in real time. The consumption patterns of both medium are the main difference, as a podcast is intended to be consumed on a per/episode basis and internet radio, like traditional radio, is just an ongoing broadcast that can be tapped into by listeners at any point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.211.39 (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, a Podcast is analogue to a radio show, while Internet Radio is analogue to the actual radio station itself. For example - BBC Radio 4 package up many of their various shows into Podcasts that can be listened to on-demand, while Radio 4 itself can be streamed online as a internet radio station.82.13.2.104 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal Situation

some information about the copyright situation would do the article good.

Agreed. There should be information about the Legality of Internet Radio.

I added a reference to an article by Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. It discusses how broadcasters can benefit from different laws in Canada where royalties are "a percentage of revenue model rather than the U.S. per-stream approach." I imagine there are lots of other ways to bypass US royalties. Can someone add how European laws might affect this situation? Dtaw2001 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What to do with this paragraph?

I didn't found the origin of that, and i do not know if the quote is a verbatim copy, but it is inaccurate!

Dang Thi Thu Huong, writing a PhD on internet radio at Bournemouth University, UK, argues that internet radio is a particular form of media in itself, and cannot simply be the rebroadcast of on-air radio programmes via the Internet. She suggests this definition: "Web radio is a hybrid of radio and the Internet, featuring professional output including live radio programmes online and/or archived radio programmes online, accompanied and supported by some text and/or images, and interactive communication via the World Wide Web."

What part is inaccurate? Can you make it more accurate? ThanksE. abu Filumena 02:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

it doesn't fit with wikipedia. while Huong may be writing a dissertation, wikipedia is not, and the definition is very awkward. sounds like self-promotion to me. -65.30.156.9 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

spam, pov

Is there a problem with some of the exteranl links? Mikereichold 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was clearer how Mercora IMRadio contributed to Internet radio as whole, then it wouldn't sound like spam.

Was this the first use of Ogg Vorbis, a transportable satellite internet broadcast system, and open source software over the internet?

Was Mercora IMRadio the first one to pay out royalties to copyright collectives for use over the internet?

These would be highly significant and need citations to be verifiable. Larryk12308 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)LarryK12308

Internet Radio Project

I'm currently working on a proposal for an Internet Radio Project to help try and organize some of this stuff. Feel free to stop by and give some input. Randomgenius 04:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

huj

"The virtual tuner service that has established itself as a market leader with the most reliable set of links to the broadcast urls and that has created the largest aggregation of broadcasts with over 7,800 worldwide is Vtuner." ... sounded like an ad to me and made me tune out

Finding and playing an audio stream

I am wondering whether there exist any Windows-compatible media players that allow a keyword search and playing of audio streams, other than the Windows Media Player. I do not mean the players limited to a specific format or a specific group of stations, but rather players capable of finding and playing any radio station on the internet. Unfortunately, reading the article did not help me find an answer to this question. The article mentions technologies that can do certain things, but does not specify the software or its capability. It seems that this article can help a programmer more than it would a PC user,

Alex

Virtual Tuner

I advise doing something about the paragraph devoted to virtual tuners. Not only does it come across like ad copy for the VTUNER product, but no specific mention is made of these other "virtual tuners" that exist in the marketplace.

I did a Google search for "virtual tuner" and have been unsuccessful finding any references for this term. I think this article needs to remain objective and should not be inventing terminology that is not widely accepted in the online community.

--SWCastNetwork 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Things may have changed since then--a Google search for "virtual tuner" now brings up 20,700 listings (many duplicates, of course). Without the quotation marks there are over 4 million hits, but that many probably isn't as useful.

--JWMcCalvin 05:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quantity of results is completely irrelavent. Quality is. The top ten pages of listings on Google for "virtual tuner" do not by any means substantiate that "virtual tuner" is a term in generic usage on the Internet. The vast majority of the results refer to the single proprietary VirtualTuner.com service. The other results are mere "resyndications" of the Wikipedia article describing this questionable term. And the remainder of results have absolutely nothing to do with Internet radio at all, but are describing pedal tuners for guitars and source aggregators for video feeds. So once again, I assert that the paragraph describing virtual tuners either needs to be removed or dramatically reduced since it is not a significant aspect of Internet radio. And Wikipedia articles should not be about inventing new terminology.

--SWCastNetwork 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently,I confused what seemed to be the simple statement "I did a Google search for 'virtual tuner' and have been unsuccessful finding any references. . . ." with an implied "... did a Google search and found no references to it as a generic term or related generally to Internet radio." Based on the evidence you present, I've taking the liberty to revise the paragraph and remove the 'advertisement.'

--JWMcCalvin 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct capitalization of Internet radio and Web radio

Internet and Web are both proper nouns when refering to the global networks known as the Internet and the World Wide Web. Please capitalize these terms appropriately when discussing Internet radio (or Net radio) and Web radio.

--SWCastNetwork 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Net radio, though is short for "network radio", and hence lower case. Rich Farmbrough, 14:27 4 September 2006 (GMT).

Please provide a verifiable source, as I have never once heard of this so called "network radio" (unless it is refering to a service that is actually a broadcast network in and of itself). Seeing as "Net radio" by itself appears far more commonly in reference to Internet radio broadcasts, I have doubts that it is anything other than shorthand for "Internet radio."

According to Webopedia, "Net" is synonymous with the Internet, In which case it is capitalized for it is a proper noun.

• http://webopedia.com/TERM/N/Net.html

--SWCastNetwork 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

External links to radio stations ?

I re-arranged the external links on the Internet radio article. One section, I made, "Some sample internet radio stations". It seems to be an advert area for odd-bit stations ? I am not sure it should be there at all. Should it be deleted ? Thoughts ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

I removed that section, since it was clearly being used for promotion. The standard practice in this situation is to link to a directory rather than having an incomplete and not clearly defined list. Wmahan. 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You people think too much. Westmar. 06:10, 17 September 2006

Wikipedia is not a place to promote things, as you attempted to do here. If you wish to add content, it would be welcome. Wmahan. 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't promoting anything. I was the eighteenth person to provide content under a section titled "EXTERNAL LINKS". Westmar. 11:04, 17 September 2006

Why was the information i added about the Godfathers of Sports Talk website and radio show deleted? I wasn't promoting anything. It's a link to a site that has a weekly sports radio show. Have you even seen the website or listened to the show? Its a website/podcast, so it has plenty to do with the topic.

Clarifying Terms

I added a couple words to the first paragraph to help clarify a few of the technical terms that were being used a little loosely.
Broadcast refers specifically to wireless transmission since that delivery method eminates broadly without discrimination.
Netcasting is the term used to indicate delivery through the Internet.
It is worth distinguishing since netcasts require a series of technologies (computer, monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, modem, cables, appropriate software, exact URL) and for-pay services (browser software, player software, internet access), BUT broadcast media require only one device and no fees
Think of it as the difference between cable and the "Networks."
Also, I added the term e-Radio as a synonym since it's used by over 2 million websites to identify their internet radio services.
JussD 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

editing internet radio history

You keep editing the internet radio history and leaving out substantial facts and including minor occurances as major events. You obviously were not around or paying attention when internet radio was first getting started. Feel free to contact me at test7301@verizon.net so that you can learn the facts in order to present a truthful and useful wiki on the subject.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.30.10 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

When inserting bold claims, please cite them. --PhantomS 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First hand experience is the citation.

Please see Wikipedia:Attribution. --PhantomS 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the best part of the Wikipedia:Attribution: "whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." No wonder there's so much controversy over Wikipedia in learned and professional circles...nothing has to be true.

Ha ha, but not quite. What that means is, we depend on journalistic and academic research to do the factfinding for us. THEIR standards of truth are high enough that this is hardly a concern. But borrowed, evidentiary truth is not untruth. Jfarber 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And, an attribution for you from Yahoo News:

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.

Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called “The Hyperlinked Society,” Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”

This is NOT new, nor is it somehow coming from Wales himself. We say so here. Wales is simply repeating a universal truth. I have no sympathy for these students either.

Note, by the way, that Wales AND Wikipedia are absolutely right to suggests that college level work should not use ENcyclopedias, of which Wikipedia is one type. This is, instead, part of the basic standards of academia -- that NO single reference work should ever be trusted. I'm a teacher of middle school, even I know to teach my students that wikipedia, LIKE ANY ENCYCLOPEDIA, is for background, not for primary source work. Those students deserve their Fs, but it is no slight on Wikipedia. To suggest as much sorely misunderstands/misrepresents the roles encyclopedic sources should and do have in academia. Jfarber 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, another attribution from Fox News:

NEW YORK — Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud.

The online reference work was dealt a serious blow last week as it emerged that EssJay, a Wikipedia editor understood by the site and its users to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, was in fact a 24-year-old from Kentucky called Ryan Jordan with no higher educational qualifications to speak of.

What is more, Mr. Jordan's expertise and dedication to the site seemed so great that he was given a full-time job at another company run by Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder.

Why "oops"? All Fox News bias aside, I'd be happy to verify my credentials if that turned out to be the COMMUNITY consensus here at Wikipedia. But Fox News is a bit off here -- as I understand it, Wikipedia IS its 'faceless Internet editors"; to report that we are going to ask OURSELVES to verify our credentials isn't the sinister move you seem to think it is. To suggest otherwise makes me wonder if you might benefit from reading about the Cabal. Jfarber 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's AP, now carried at CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/08/wikipedia.credentials.ap/index.html

...and phrased much less sinisterly, but still not an oops, nor any sort of argument that wikipedia is broken. I like how the new article specifies that only those who CLAIM such credentials will be asked to prove them -- a big deal, since so very, very few of us think our RL credentials matter. Notably, in wikipedia, original research doesn't COUNT, so credentials as an expert make no difference when, say, creating content... Jfarber 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

recurring reinsertion of spamlink

I've deleted the same link to radio (Radioguide.fm) twice in one morning. User goes by name of Economyms but account seems to have been deleted; this morning s/he used ip address 86.92.243.214 to make the changes. Can an admin handle this, plz? Jfarber 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spammer has also been posting to List of Internet stations. The ip addresses and user names that I've seen for both articles are:

• 195.241.131.49
• 86.92.243.214
• 82.92.94.32
• Economyms

--PhantomS 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

copyediting

Without deleting any unique content, I've done some copyediting for encyclopedic tone and readability.

It would be great to work on standardizing all the citations with <ref></ref>, so that they are all automatically listed in {{references}} In this way, an article which is printed out will still contain all citations, nicely numbered and linked. --Lexein 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced all the inline external links with <ref></ref> a short while ago. The citations could probably still use some work but I think it's a lot better now. Hoping to be able to remove the {cleanup} before too long. SlubGlub (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

History - ip radio inc

This addition appeared here : "More recently, in 2006, a company called IP Radio, Inc. was formed by entrepreneurs Stephen Padron, Ray Lytle, and Clyde Passman. The trio recognized the enormous potential of Internet Radio and the trend towards increasing advertising dollars being earmarked for the internet. Their offerings are a combination of music and entertainment in the genres of classic rock (http://www.Throwbackrock.com), alternative rock (http://www.Disasterradio.net), and country (http://www.Hotnewcountry.com), and have quickly became the most popular streams on the Internet."

This was built up with no edit summaries, no comments in Talk, there are no citations, it's POV, it's advertising, the corporate parent http://www.ipradiocast.com/ is a raw directory of files. This casts doubt on the claim of "one of the most popular streams". Posting this entry in Talk is a courtesy. If it was up to me, rv non-notable, but I hate edit wars.

--Lexein 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the current event message?

Why is this article tagged with the current event message? I think it should be removed. Unless I'm missing something... Hey martin 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The bill to increase the royalty rates on Internet Radio Broadcast is going into effect on the 15th of July. As it is retroactive to January 1, 2006, many broadcasters may go off the air due to the massive amounts of royalties the will suddenly owe. Sherpajohn 12:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing history information

There seems to be a big hunk of history missing. For example, around 2000, the US radio actors union claimed that any radio ads streamed over the Internet would have to pay the radio actors a "national" fee rather than a "local" fee, and since that royalty was substantially higher, a lot of stations dropped their Internet streams for several years until software was developed to block the local ads. The stations came back in dribs and drabs, but it was a pretty bleak period for Internet radio from 2000=2003. None of this is mentioned here.

Even now, the software the stations use aren't perfect. I quite often hear the start of ads before the software kicks in and plays Muzak. Sometimes the software doesn't switch off and the actual program gets stepped on. I guess the union doesn't mind as long as stations are making an effort to block the ads.

The important thing to note here is that even though stations continued to stream while there was ongoing arguements about copyright royalty payments, the radio actors union kicked off probably a thousand Internet stations for a while and did more damage than the various copyright committees did.

70.22.211.209 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

HardRadio

What to do about the HardRadio stuff in the History section of this article? I don't feel like having an edit war, but as soon as I removed it, it was put back in. The only reference/citation given is a press release republished by allbusiness.com. That citation cannot be considered authoritative nor reliable. Perhaps HardRadio is significant in the history of Internet radio, but if so, you'd think there'd be more authoritative and reliable information about its historic role than a press release. SlubGlub (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Billboard Magazine's Radio Monitor reprint - Hardradio.com Celebrates A Decade Of Decadence at http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4487814-1.html

Beginning January 1996 HardRadio.com has been featured in Billboard Magazine (x3), Rolling Stone(x2), Radio and Records (x2), Forbes, Wired, Radio World, USA Today, Guitar World, Hit Parader, Unlimited, Netweek, Yahoo! Internet Life, The Web, Details, FMQB, Hits, Streaming Magazine, Macedition, Netguide, PC Magazine, Music Online for Dummies, Plug In: A Guide To Music On The Net, Get Media Airplay, and Rock City News.

However, there remain no online links to the above articles except MacEdition at http://old.macedition.com/feat/feat_20010713.php. Another interesting link is http://www.angel.org/Book/chapter_1.pdf, An Introduction to Internet Broadcasting first published in 1997 (it shows the HardRadio website circa fall 1997).

You can also see various captures of the HardRadio.com website going back to 1996 at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hardradio.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.84.138 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And in order to be perfectly fair and give credit where credit is due to the pioneers of internet radio, you should include netradio.net, who went online in November 1995. They were the first overall internet-only radio station, HardRadio was the first .com and the first professional station as it's founders were all award winning programmers and personalities from national syndicated network satellite and terrestrial radio. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Rock)

I'll read this stuff more closely later and perhaps comment further at that point, but based on what I see so far, this material is problematic. HardRadio and NetRadio seem to be (with all due respect) interesting footnotes, and they have a nice PR-friendly list of alleged "firsts" but there's not a whole lot to say about their historical significance that can't be summed up in a short sentence or two. Again, with all due respect, as I see it, the idea that HardRadio warrants a fat paragraph when (to name just one example) Spinner.Com doesn't even have a mention in the history section is a pretty clear indication of boosterism rather than helpful historical perspective. (And again, I'll review the above material more closely later. Maybe I'm missing something.) SlubGlub (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that these two that blazed the whole trail deserve much more than a "footnote". These were the pioneers that took the arrows in the back and revolutionized two industries, the radio broadcasting industry, and the recording industry.In particular with HardRadio, who is sole survivor of the very first internet-only pioneers. In addition, you should probably also include audionet (later broadcast.com) and KPIG as early terrestrial based streaming pioneers. Of course you know Mark Cuban sold broadcast.com for billions. It may be a plus for you to contact someone like Cuban or Kurt Hanson with the Radio and Internet Newsletter (http://www.kurthanson.com/) or Peggy Miles with the webcaster mailing list and author of a 1998 book on webcasting, Jim Atkinson at 3wk who began webcasting in 1997, Tracy Barnes at HardRadio.com, Rob Glaser at Real, Howard Gordon past ceo of Xing, or the editors and publishers of the past Streaming Magazine so you can produce a correct and factual historical rendering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.84.138 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1999/04/19286 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.84.138 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You declare all these entities to be ones who revolutionized the industry, but the evidence of their historical significance, at least as marshaled in the article as it currently stands, is thin. If HardRadio were truly worthy of a lengthy paragraph, then that paragraph would be filled with important information. Instead, it contains things like "the first internet-only radio station featured in Radio & Records Magazine". I very much doubt that someone looking to understand the history and evolution of Internet radio would find it useful to identify the first Internet-only radio station to be featured in Time magazine or Rolling Stone magainze, much less a smaller-circulation and niche magazine like Radio & Records. First Internet radio station (note the absence of the "Internet-only" qualifier) featured in Time magazine? Sure, maybe. First Internet-only in Radio & Records? That's just clutter and noise that distracts from the narrative. (Granted, the narrative is totally absent right now. I'd like to help fix that, but part of that--perhaps the first step--is removing non-notable material.) SlubGlub (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and I suppose you aren't a broadcaster. You should know that R&R is where most in the industry got their information in the day, sort of like the bible of broadcasting. When something like a totally foreign form of broadcasting gets a two page interview spread at the beginning of internet radio, this is what brought the attention of both industries to internet radio. It's similar to getting published in an American Medical journal when a scientist discovers something new or revolutionary. That article on this new "internet radio" got a lot of attention, from many other published periodicals and newspapers, even up to the CEO and publisher of the R&R trade journal. Of course the "internet radio" had plenty of naysayers and was scorned and ridiculed for a while, but everyone quickly saw the radio and records industries start to get in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.84.138 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be inadvertently confirming what I'm arguing. If the R&R article was so important, that should be explained (with citations to reliable sources that discuss the importance of the article).

Your IP address seems to be registered to Tracy Barnes, the president of HardRadio. This suggests that you work for HardRadio or perhaps are Tracy Barnes himself. If this is correct, it is still possible for you to contribute to information about HardRadio without violating the neutral-point-of-view fundamental Wikipedia principle. However, there certainly seems to be an appearance that the primary concern is maintaining a place for HardRadio in the article and not about the quality of the article overall.

The fundamental questions are these: Does a brief historical overview of Internet radio benefit from a brief (one or two sentence) description of HardRadio with a citation to any extraordinary facts? (Answer: Maybe.) How about a long list of "firsts" without any citation to a reliable published source regarding those "firsts"? (Answer: No.) Can a brief historical overview of Internet radio possibly be covered in a competent fashion without any mention or only a passing mention of HardRadio? (Answer: Likely yes, once again, with all due respect.) SlubGlub (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can contact me at test7301@verizon.net if you would like to discuss. Also, yes you should cover Spinner.com, as well as Imagine Radio that is referenced in an article link posted above.

I reiterate that you should contact the persons above to get a true read on the early history of internet radio. A sketchy and/or incomplete wiki entry would not benefit wikipedia and it's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.84.138 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss here. No need to take it to private email, but thanks.

You have twice now suggested I talk to certain individuals. These suggestions don't seem to be of the "talk to these people and they'll recommend some good books and/or articles" variety but more of the "talk to these people and they'll tell you the history of Internet radio that you won't find anywhere else" variety. While I do not doubt that these suggestions are made with the best of intentions, using this sort of research method to contribute to the article would violate Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. SlubGlub (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting talking to these individuals that were there and actively participating, not what may be a somewhat cloudy observation on the historical events from 13 years after the facts. These *are* the people who "wrote the books and articles" as you say. If you would like to research terrestrial broadcasting's early days, you will discover a long standing confusion as to who did what, and when, wether it's in the realm of the broadcast technology itself or something like the first commercial broadcast using the radio wave technology. I and many others don't want to see the contributions and accomplishments of the pioneers of internet radio be obscured, especially in a purported "factual" encyclopedia. It may be an advantage for any article moderator in the wikipedia to have a grasp and knowledge and hopefully some level of expertise of at least the majority of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.84.138 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used to document things that are not already well-documented in published reliable unbiased sources. The History section starting with the HardRadio paragraph violates or appears to violate many Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, No original research, What Wikipedia is not. SlubGlub (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph right now is about as large as the HardRadio article itself and is a catalog of "first this, first that". When you're the first station around, you'll naturally be the first to do a lot of particuliar specific things (that's a bit like saying Neil Armstrong was the first man to step on the moon, the first man to walk on the moon, to talk on the moon, to put his footprint on the moon, to skip on the moon, to walk on the moon and return to Earth, etc). This kind of information/detail in the Internet Radio history section is not useful, somewhat redundant and unnecessary. It should be left to the HardRadio article at most. Keep it short.--Boffob (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A June 1995 LA Times article cites Radio HK as a source that "'broadcasts' exclusively via the Internet." The URL given is http://www.hkweb.com/radio/. This would predate HardRadio's debut date of December 31, 1995. A September 1995 LA Times article mentions that Radio HK was nominated for a Webby award that year and describes Radio HK as "the first full-time Internet radio staion." I intend to put this information in the history section. I may then also remove or scale back the information on HardRadio, depending on what seems appropriate. However, in the interest of avoiding an edit war, I'm writing this here first for feedback and will wait a day or four before doing anything.SlubGlub (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RadioHK was a tape loop of 6 songs played over and over. Many people were doing experiments like that, HardRadio principals in particular were using CUSeeMe in the same limited capacity at least a year earlier. Remember to include Netradio.net which went online in November 1995, which was the first overall (as a .net) internet-only radio station, and had live DJ's early on. HardRadio.com was the first .com and is still the oldest surviving internet-only radio station. It is still suggested contacting and speaking with the people who were there pioneering the medium and get some first hand knowledge before attempting to change history once more.

btw, from the Webby Awards site at http://www.webbyawards.com/about/: "The Webby Awards is the leading international award honoring excellence on the Internet. Established in 1996 during the Web's infancy, the Webbys are presented by The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, a 550-member body of leading Web experts, business figures, luminaries, visionaries and creative celebrities."

That makes "A September 1995 LA Times article mentions that Radio HK was nominated for a Webby award that year" an article that predates the formation of the Webby Awards itself.

SlubGlub it seems as if you have some predisposition or bias against HardRadio and it's accomplishments and place in the true history of internet radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioist (talk • contribs) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a bias against HardRadio. What I dislike are assertions in Wikipedia that are either uncited or cited using sources that fail to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I also dislike boosterism. I have removed a lot of (though not yet all of) the uncited and non-notable booster/spam material from this article in the hopes of improving it to the point where that "clean-up" thing at the top can legitimately be removed. I've also slowly added material from reputable resources. I only hit a bump in the road when I got up to HardRadio and someone who almost certainly has a conflict of interest reinstated the deleted poorly-referenced material. I'm not the one changing history. I am merely summarizing the documented consensus from reliable published resources. Please stop suggesting that I do original research on the subject in violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is distinctly not for documenting information that is unavailable anywhere elsewhere.

Regarding Radio HK being insignificant and NetRadio and HardRadio being significant, please provide a citation. That information would be awesome to have, but it needs to be documented in reliable sources. All we have for HardRadio right now is a reprint of a press release (which basically amounts to self-publishing and is therefore not valuable except to document what HardRadio said about itself) and a Mac magazine interview that also only seems to be useful for documenting what HardRadio said about itself. Unless you can provide a reliable external citation, I don't see any reason to accept your assertion that Radio HK was little more than a six-song loop (and, therefore you imply, not as significant as HardRadio and NetRadio). I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm saying it needs to be documented in a reliable published source. Please note Wikipedia policy on verifiability, the first sentece of which is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—-meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

As for the LA Times article predating the Webbys, please see the Wikipedia entry on Webby Awards where it explains that "The phrase The Webby Awards was used from 1994-1996 by the World Wide Web Organization, which was first introduced in 1994 by WebMagic, Cisco Systems and ADX Kentrox. As one of its services, it sponsored 'the monthly Webby awards to spotlight online innovation. Web.org was decommissioned in 1997." In other words, there was something called the Webby Awards that predates the current Webby Awards. SlubGlub (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to mention (with citations) the small number of commercial internet radio stations that started up in 1995 and perhaps a brief description of their individual significances (if they are documented somewhere) and fate (likewise). That will give the reader the important information--that it was an emerging technology in 1995, there were a handful of pioneers that started streaming then, and it was a tough business--without devolving into vanity paragraphs that cheer-lead about trivialities. SlubGlub (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Radio

I'm guessing that the people working on radio articles - particularly this one - might have some insight to add to this discussion over on Wikinews.

The idea of a Wikinews Radio station was proposed, something that simply wouldn't work due to lack of content. But Wikimedia Radio, drawing on audio from all projects, seems achievable. Commons has free music, Wikipedia has spoken articles and a few podcasts, Wikinews can do news summaries for regular playing, Wikiversity has a similar idea - Wiki Campus Radio - and wants to do educational material, Wikisource has audio books, and Wikiquote generally has a recording of the quote of the day. With enough cross-project collaboration it starts to look like we could run our own Wikimedia Radio service.

What I don't know, and strongly suspect those editing this article will, is what are the technical considerations to take into account? Is there a "runs-out-the-box" FLOSS streaming solution we could use? Please feel free to hop over to Wikinews and give input on these items and any other ideas you might have for content. --Brian McNeil /^talk 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible new link: Musicovery

It might be appropriate to add an internal link to Musicovery, an orphaned article. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There aren't links in this article to much more notable services that are similar--Pandora and Last.fm, for example. While mentioning those services would seem to be justified, Musicovery is simply not as notable. SlubGlub (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent SoundExchange Developments and Coatrack Concerns

The article becomes a bit of a WP:COATRACK at the end with all the SoundExchange and Day Of Silence stuff. While that deserves mention, the article is about Internet radio, not about a distinctly American dispute between webcasters and SoundExchange.

The dispute is controversial and very important, and like I said, it deserves mention. But it is way outsized. It probably deserves its own article. Meanwhile, there are important historical entities like Spinner.Com that aren't even *mentioned* in this article.

I've tried to be fairly aggressive about keeping the SoundExchange stuff brief, but I think it needs significant editing at this point, and so I thought I'd get the consensus on this issue before forging ahead with only my own personal opinion. (Or maybe someone else wants to take a whack at it.)

At the very least, the heading "Recent SoundExchange Developments" needs to be removed or changed. Those developments won't be "Recent" forever. I propose removing it and perhaps consolidating the information in that section to a single paragraph (or, at most, two paragraphs).

SlubGlub (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like everything from the {{cleanup}} template to the end of that section (right before "Popularity") could be struck. It's minutiae and doesn't add anything to the article. Padillah (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

History Flaw

Your internet radio history continues to be flawed. Carl Malamud had in no way pioneered an internet radio station. See the following at http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/1994-June/065717.html:

PUBLIB Interview: Carl Malamud

PUBLIB: What is Internet Talk Radio?

Carl:

We're a "radio station" on the Internet. Words like "radio" and "station" are just convenient metaphors, but at first glance what we're doing is sending audio programs to people who listen to the programs on their personal computers.

Internet Talk Radio is our scientific and technical channel and we also have the Internet Town Hall that concentrates on public affairs.

In either case, we take audio and package it as a file.

The files make their way around the world and are played using any standard sound tools. We make a point of *not* providing software ... by providing only data we allow the user to decide how to fit this information with their personal computing environment.

Currently, we put out approximately 3 hours per day of programming. This ranges from National Press Club Luncheons to congressional hearings to programs such as SoundPrint and our own Geek of the Week interviews. <end>

That is nothing more than file distribution via download similar to a podcast. Microsoft distributes updates and security fixes via download, under your history you should probably include them as an internet radio station. Audio discussion files were available back in 1990 or so on the old mac-centric AOL, btw.

Under your own podcasting section on this page: distinction between internet radio and podcast? It is possible that the definition of Downloading needs to be revisited, though I think "recieve" hints at the fundamental difference. However, I do NOT think this is a problem with this article, because I think most computer users make a clear distinction between downloading and streaming. Podcasting involves downloading, meaning the entire file must be recieved, stored, and opened in order to play it. radio is, on the other hand, a form of Streaming media, which, according to our entry, is defined as "multimedia that is continuously received by, and normally displayed to, the end-user whilst it is being delivered by the provider." Certainly different, certainly NOT the same as podcasting/downloading, and hopefully the answer to your question. Jfarber 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please get someone to oversee the internet radio article that has some sort of clue. Thank you. Radioist (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As well, you have left out and disregarded the true pioneers of the medium, KPIG in terrestrial streaming, and internet-only Netradio.net (the first internet-only radio station-November 1995), HardRadio.com (the first .com internet-only radio station-December 1995), iRock, Imagine Radio, Spinner, 3wk, and several others who were there in the beginning. Radioist (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is clear that Malamud's program was not initially streaming: "However, as late as 1995, this service was not available via multicast streaming; it was distributed 'as audio files that computer users fetch one by one.'[2]" Your citation of a 1994 interview confirming this fact only shows that the article is accurate, not flawed.

That said, the entire article does need improvement in the editing and verifiable information department. Some informed and selfless individual will no doubt eventually provide that assistance. SlubGlub (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Players infobox

Is the infobox for Media Players really appropriate on this article? If so, is there a way to make it more compact? It seems to take up a lot of real estate for a topic that is related but not essential. SlubGlub (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the navbox template for Media Players to allow it's state to be overridden in articles, and then added a parameter in this article to collapse it. I'm not 100% sure it belongs in this article, but certainly it should start collapsed. SlubGlub (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

sound vs. song copyright

This sentence from the "controversy" is very misleading if not factually incorrect, contributing to much misunderstanding of this topic:

One result of the DMCA is that performance royalties are to be paid for satellite radio and Internet radio broadcasts. In contrast, traditional radio broadcasters pay no performance royalties.

Actually, tradition radio broadcast is one of the primary "performances" for which ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, the traditional performance rights organizations, collect for. The confusion arises because these organizations collect for the publisher, the holder of the "song copyright"- in other words, the composer- while the controversy here concerning SoundExchange is that they are demanding royalties be paid to the sound copyright holder, in other words, the record company, which does not receive royalties when their recording is played on traditional radio. It's the difference between the "C" and the "P" with the circle on it on the back of CDs, if anyone still has those. Just seems like this should be clarified, but would require a little more explanation of copyright law. Harveytuttle (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The cited source for that sentence says that the DMCA "included a provision earmarking performance royalties for music companies (and, by extension, musicians) when copyrighted pieces were played over either Internet or satellite radio. This clause broke new ground in the U.S., where publishers receive compensation for regular or Internet radio broadcasts via fees collected by organizations like the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) -- but performers get jack."

Would you say that the source is incorrect? Or the source is correct but the Wikipedia article doesn't correctly reflect the content of the article? SlubGlub (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to now say: "One result of the DMCA is that performance royalties are to be paid for satellite radio and Internet radio broadcasts in addition to publisher royalties. In contrast, traditional radio broadcasters pay only publisher royalties and no performance royalties." I suppose an explanation of publisher vs. performance royalties would be better than making people click the footnote link to get the information, but I think this is a bit better than before. SlubGlub (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

sections out of balance

The section on the US royalty controversy takes up almost half the article. It takes over the article, as if Internet radio has already fallen apart due to this controversy. The section goes into too much detail about the temporary situations on May 1, 2007 and August 16, 2008, rather than taking a long-term view that shows how these events fit into the whole history. I assume that people have just been adding to the section like a diary, without looking at the big picture or the entire article. The section mentions Live365, Pandora, and Last.fm, but a previous section should explain what these and other notable stations are, and how they grew. Filling in more of the history and current status of Internet radio, and its use outside the US, would balance the article and keep the US royalty section from being so overwhelming. I would write it myself but I don't have enough expertise. Sluggoster (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation format

I'd like to switch the name order in the citations to last, first. This makes citing different pages of a resource easier - <ref>Dude, p. 43.</ref>. Asking here per WP:CITEHOW. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

SAM Broadcaster...

Are there any programs like SAM Broadcaster? Someone tell me why there is no Wiki article that lists and describes:

Internet radio broadcasting applications.

Thanks. Because I want to know. - Curious Wiki-er. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.162.10 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

wwww.radionomy.com is similar to SAM Broadcaster and allows for users to create online radio stations from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvwww (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

First Internet Radio

The first Internet radio broadcast was by Carl Malamud. An IP removed this information back in 2010 without any explanation of why they made the edit, even though the information was referenced. In addition, Severe Tire Damage has the honors of doing the first-ever Internet concert (as backed up by two references) Samboy (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092602/http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/08/22/soundexchange-offers-discounted-music-royalties-to-small-webcasters to http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/08/22/soundexchange-offers-discounted-music-royalties-to-small-webcasters
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630094044/http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/internet-radio-soundexchange-announces-24-agreements-but-not-one-a-settlement-with-small-webcasters.html to http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/internet-radio-soundexchange-announces-24-agreements-but-not-one-a-settlement-with-small-webcasters.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PODCASTS, RADIOPHONICS, AND SOUND ART

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CassMuller41 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by I.e.jamie (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)