MP3.com Removes "High-Bandwidth" Streams 154
mshiltonj writes "I noticed today that mp3.com no longer offers high-bandwidth streams for its genres or stations, although it looks like artists' playlists and individual songs are available in high bandwidth. mp3.com has lots and lots of free music that was free and legal to listen to online, and a good number of my "music bookmarks" were on mp3.com. I'll live (I've still got my favorite stream), but I don't think it's a good sign. Is streaming music doomed to die, not because of RIAA litigation, but because of expensive bandwidth costs?" I don't think bandwidth will be the determining cost - that's a price that has been falling and will continue to fall. But are things like iTunes store the future, or is it streaming?
Market Readjustment... (Score:4, Informative)
So I guess this means one of two things will happen, either:
a) Streaming will continue to be lower quality and more people will drop their high quality streams, or
b) bandwidth prices will drop as more and more people get broadband, making streaming at high quality feasible.
Either way, the provider has to recoup expenses or prices have to drop, so the action mp3.com has taken isn't really that surprising.
A better resource.... (Score:5, Informative)
This is what mp3.com used to be but a bit better.. if your signed. you CANT be there.
so you get a nice untainted pool of real artists.
mp3.com has sucked for over 3 years now. I haven't been back there cince mid 2000.
Re:Subscription radio stations (Score:2, Informative)
I don't actually have it myself, but I have heard good things about it.
Re:Bandwidth has a cost... (Score:5, Informative)
While that may not be super expensive, it can add up.
Re:Well, imagine that. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In this market..... (Score:2, Informative)
Bandwidth costs not falling fast enough (Score:5, Informative)
I've been following the discussions on ISP-PLANET [isp-planet.com] and Internet providers are pretty concerned over this trend as it breaks the economic model the Internet grew-up on. Articles there are looking at changing pricing from the flat-rate structure we have now to everything from pay per MB to using dynamic bandwidth shapers to reduce the speed of large data transfers to kicking high bandwidth users off their networks entirely. The last is the most common remedy in use now.
I admit I'm an ISP. Since only 10% of users use P2P or streaming, I kick P2P users off my network. My competitor didn't and I stole half his broadband customers because his network became too congested. Now he is madly trying to block P2P after telling his customers he doesn't restrict their usage - he had thought that would get him our customers and it did get some, namely, those I didn't want because I was losing money on them. Many of the P2P types switched to cable after Adelphia started offering it here six months ago and the throughput on Adelphia's local network has dropped to less than a dial-up modem because of the congestion.
P2P and streaming (especially video or high-bandwith audio) is too expensive. About the only thing currently doable is multicast audio like Internet radio but unfortunately the RIAA want's 1.5 cents per listener per song (according to a local radio station ower who checked into it) making it infeasable for most radio stations.
MP3.com is just facing economic reality and it is doubtfull bandwidth costs will fall fast enough to allow them to resume high-bandwidth streaming of free tunes.
Re:Subscription radio stations (Score:3, Informative)
The spanish radio you say is probably Radio3 [www.rne.es]. It's part of RNE, Radio Nacional de España (Spanish National Radio), and so it's paid by the state. There are 5 of these radios, each having its own realm: Radio5 (or was it Radio1?) is "only news", and Radio2 is only classical music, IIRC. There're also TVE1 and TVE2 (national TV channel 1 and 2, respectively; though TVE2 is usually called "La 2", "The 2nd [channel]"). TVE1 is your typical mass-media TV channel, with news reports, films and TV shows of varying quality. TVE2 is more "alternative", with a lot of documentals and more limited audience shows. BTW, while radio usually hasn't got any ads, TV is full of them. TVE2 has a little less, but in the whole there are a shitload of them anyway.
There would be no standard commercial way for this radio to survive if it were a independent one. But being all of us (tax payers, I mean) the ones that pay a bit for it, it's still there. And it rocks :-) I don't like some of the music they play, but they are the ones to listen if you want to hear indie music (or not-so-indie). They also patronize concerts for indie bands, and some other musical events.
I've got the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that in the USA you won't like having a radio like this. Too many people will complain about having to pay taxes for a radio that they won't listen. Also, many people would complain that a "state radio" couldn't be truly independent (in the sense of being not biased to favour govt's issues); and I agree with this, but in real life the supposed "independent" press and radio are quite biased too, without the govt having anything to do with them :-)
Anyway, I'm quite happy that a little part of my taxes is not spent only paying the 99% of useless politicians that we have in Spain ;-)
I think many of you are missing the bigger picture (Score:5, Informative)
Since then, Mp3.com's goal has gone from promoting individual (mostly unsigned) artists to promoting Vivendi artists.
Which is why Vivendi won't reconcile the accounts of Mp3.com members who are owed less than $50 (most of them) and why Vivendi artists get top billing.
Cutting the streams isn't new - Mp3.com also limited bands to uploading only one song recently, in a move that angered everyone but Vivendi Universal.
See, I'm sure the bandwidth costs were a factor. But you have to understand, you only cut those expensive items that aren't critical to your business.
Before Vivendi Universal bought Mp3.com, streams were a priority. They allowed new bands to be heard. Multiple songs were also a priority for Mp3.com, because their business was promoting new music.
Now their business is promoting Vivendi Universal music - and compared to returns (since Vivendi can afford to put their music on the radio) it's not that big a deal to them. So it - and the bands it promotes - gets shafted.
The decline of MP3.com (Score:3, Informative)
Because of the lack of new artists signing up for MP3.com, MP3.com in general has been in decline.
A few things... (Score:4, Informative)
2) They're doing it because they have a membership service now, and hi-fi genre playlists are on the list of reasons to join. It's still not hard to get hi-fi songs from mp3.com, I doubt this changed their bandwidth usage very much. Besides, my reaction was to find the top ten artists on a genre, visit their page, load their hi-fi list, and compile them together in to one huge list. They sure as hell aren't saving money through me.
Re:yeah, I have noticed that bandwith is an issue. (Score:4, Informative)
You mustn't have seen all the skull & crossbone symbols, on LP sleeves from the late 70's onwards, with the skull made out of a compact cassette, and bearing the legend, "Home taping is killing the music industry," then.
The RIAA, or equivalent have bitched and whined, wailed and gnashed teeth at every single technological development that has had anything to do with their business.
Re:yeah, I have noticed that bandwith is an issue. (Score:2, Informative)