4 ms·

Call me ignorant but isn't it drastically cheaper to run an internet radio station? Then let others, including other radio stations repeat your internet stream

Call me ignorant but isn't it drastically cheaper to run an internet radio station? Then let others, including other radio stations repeat your internet stream over radio. I'm genuinely curious.

OfficeChad 1y ago
[dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
floatrock 1y ago
What happens when a major CDN goes out? Or, god forbid, a major datacenter region has a DNS blip that apparently 1/3 of the internet depends on? Or, what if a hurricane or ice storm knocks out some internet connectivity? That would be a time when you really want to broadcast a message to anyone with a cheap fm/am radio. Cheaper isn't always the metric here.
- giancarlostoro 1y ago
  CDN? for internet radio? Internet radio predates all that.
  - floatrock 1y ago
    Predates, sure. Is affected by? No idea, but I'm sure there's some cloudflare rep convincing you that you need cloudflare to make sure your high-availability stream stays highly available when just yesterday azure got a ddos measured with Tbs. Just not today... today those cloudflare reps happen to be busy. Point is, radio comms serve a public utility that often is a Plan-B if internet links go down. Multicast it onto your podcatcher of choice, sure, but don't make that your backbone.
E39M5S62 1y ago
I'm curious too. As a complete outsider to that problem space, it seems like a lot of the tech was designed/created in an era before wide-spread broadband and internet-based content distribution. I'm sure a lot of it is simply that new hardware from that vendor is largely a drop-in replacement for each station, so there's no need to re-engineer their broadcast booth. ... I guess HN is the new Reddit. Downvotes, not a single response. You can do better, HN.
- tb_technical 1y ago
  Some equipment is drop in - hooking up an audio output to a keyed radio is only occasionally difficult. You see a lot of these solutions in the HAM radio space. The actual radio equipment is a tad more sophisticated - and in poor areas (where it's barely hanging on) is held together with spit, glue, and prayers (exaggeration, joke, but aspects of it are true). Believe it or not, the RF cables are (in many cases) more expensive than the radios themselves. Background: Computer systems, radio systems, General class HAM, but certainly not an expert.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Stealthisbook 1y ago
The justification for many of these stations is emergency preparedness. They're maintained for the ability to receive and transmit emergency alerts despite power outages or transmission line cuts. The daily programming is mostly incidental beyond maintaining listenership
- frugalmail 1y ago
  The burden on taxpayers would be significantly less if it was strictly satellite coverage for use during emergencies.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    The burden on taxpayers would be significantly less if the government simply paid to run the system rather than additionally funding two sets of attorneys to duke it out in court to make an out of control executive actually execute the law. It's getting harder and harder to believe that this fascist movement was ever earnestly about saving money.
    - throwaway173738 1y ago
      Erasing the Federal Government is the motte and saving money is the bailey.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        It doesn't look like the Federal Government is being erased. In fact, it and its debt are rapidly growing. I'd say the motte is autocratic authoritarianism (ie fascism).
  - iso1631 1y ago
    The cost is having the satellite systems in place, working, and available. You don't save money by not using the tiny amount of bandwidth when it isn't "an emergency"
  - VBprogrammer 1y ago
ndiddy 1y ago
The stations that rely on CPB funding as a main source of income are the "others" who repeat the NPR content over the radio. They're tiny stations (typically 1-2 full-time employees) that mainly serve communities where internet streaming is not a viable option due to spotty cell coverage.
- jandrese 1y ago
  Also, receiving internet service requires some kind of paid monthly plan. The cheapest plans have very low data caps. Streaming audio over them is much less practical for the end users than having a simple radio receiver. Radio waves also propagate further than cell broadcasts.
  - esseph 1y ago
    What ISP still has data caps that isn't a LTE carrier?
    - throwaway94275 1y ago
      Comcast.
      - eurleif 1y ago
        Not on new plans as of earlier this year: https://www.pcmag.com/news/comcasts-new-plans-dump-the-data-caps https://www.pcmag.com/news/comcasts-new-plans-dump-the-data-... But Cox still has data caps.
    - jandrese 1y ago
      When you're talking about rural Internet, especially in the developing world, it is cell coverage. Wired infrastructure is expensive and when the population density is low it's unaffordable.
  - xp84 1y ago
    The OP here, in their defense, wasn't talking about just operating an internet radio to replace public broadcasting and telling listeners to just get a data planpay for Internet and go online to listen. They were suggesting TCP/IP backhaul to get the signals to the remote radio stations, and rebroadcasting on the radio. Presumably this would be feasible for most populated areas, but broadband availability is so crap outside of urban/suburban, I bet half of those really remote stations are already getting their Internet over Starlink or Hughesnet. Now, I think there are plenty of reasons that the satellites (which are already in the sky, presumably) are probably more robust in the face of emergencies than the entire Internet infrastructure. If I may steelman a good counterargument: "The Internet itself is supposed to be resilient to nuclear war!" True, but that doesn't mean outages of critical pinch points like AWS, Azure and Cloudflare don't constantly affect even services like GitHub that have huge budgets. A fully robust Internet solution with a ton of high-uptime redundancy in many POPs nationwide would likely cost more than maintaining the satellite systems.
woodruffw 1y ago
The US is pretty large, and has large areas without reliable cellular or wired Internet connections. Public radio ensures accessibility in those areas.
- almosthere 1y ago
  I wonder if we should just pass a bill that requires Starlink or Amazon Leo to use 0.5% of their bandwidth for low quality (but higher than radio) free access to Inet Radio streams in some special way. Then start building out the infra in vehicles.
  - woodruffw 1y ago
    There are plenty of places in the US that don't have reliable satellite access either (not because of orbital coverage, but because of geographic features like mountains/deep valleys). (And these aren't remote/unpopulated areas: you can find plenty of satellite dead zones 2-3 hours outside of NYC in the Catskills.)
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      Honestly curious: how many of those satellite dead-zones have good radio coverage? In my various times driving places, I've often lost radio signal in a sufficiently remote place where I 100% would have had satellite coverage. Those same features that can block satellite will also block (some kinds of) radio, if you don't have a broadcast tower at the top of the ridge or something. Yes, I agree that satellite coverage is not 100%. But neither is radio.
      - woodruffw 1y ago
        It's definitely a mixed bag, but the areas I'm thinking of have decent FM radio coverage (from local stations that affiliate with public radio). AM coverage tends to be good regardless. I've had the same experience as you around remote places, but those places were generally the flat-and-desolate kind :-)
      - 1y ago
jcrawfordor 1y ago
A major reason for the enduring use of satellite in radio distribution is that, for live events like sports or (more common in NPR's case) political events, the satellite system provides appreciably lower latency than distribution over the internet. Reduced jitter also allows for generally higher reliability, you never hear the radio station buffering. There are options for low-latency land-based connectivity but at the scale of PRSS, the satellite system is cheaper to operate. Most stations can also receive this programming over the internet, another reason for the satellite system is that it provides a completely redundant path for programming delivery. This is important for general reliability but especially so in an emergency. Historically, radio networks distributed their programming over leased telephone lines. Satellite took over because it was cheaper. That gap has probably narrowed as terrestrial communications infrastructure continues to expand, but the internet struggles with low-latency real-time media, and an arrangement like leased fiber wavelengths to member stations would still be more expensive than the satellite system. There's a lot of member stations in a lot of places, satellite reaches all of them at once.
- dtgriscom 1y ago
  > the satellite system provides appreciably lower latency than distribution over the internet Is that true? Round trip to/from geostationary satellites is about 240ms. And, with most stations using HD encoding, which adds 8 seconds to the transmission delay, any network latency isn't going to be that important anyway.
  - throwaway173738 1y ago
    It’s not about the latency between when words are spoken and when they’re heard, it’s snot when a packet is sent and when it’s received. There’s a lot of jitter and you really don’t want intermittent drops to cause people to miss parts of your programming.
standardUser 1y ago
Not during a major earthquake or hurricane.

Call me ignorant but isn't it drastically cheaper to run an internet radio station? Then let others, including other radio stations repeat your internet stream over radio. I'm genuinely curious.

OfficeChad 1y ago

[dead]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

floatrock 1y ago

What happens when a major CDN goes out? Or, god forbid, a major datacenter region has a DNS blip that apparently 1/3 of the internet depends on? Or, what if a hurricane or ice storm knocks out some internet connectivity? That would be a time when you really want to broadcast a message to anyone with a cheap fm/am radio. Cheaper isn't always the metric here.

giancarlostoro 1y ago
CDN? for internet radio? Internet radio predates all that.
- floatrock 1y ago
  Predates, sure. Is affected by? No idea, but I'm sure there's some cloudflare rep convincing you that you need cloudflare to make sure your high-availability stream stays highly available when just yesterday azure got a ddos measured with Tbs. Just not today... today those cloudflare reps happen to be busy. Point is, radio comms serve a public utility that often is a Plan-B if internet links go down. Multicast it onto your podcatcher of choice, sure, but don't make that your backbone.

E39M5S62 1y ago

I'm curious too. As a complete outsider to that problem space, it seems like a lot of the tech was designed/created in an era before wide-spread broadband and internet-based content distribution. I'm sure a lot of it is simply that new hardware from that vendor is largely a drop-in replacement for each station, so there's no need to re-engineer their broadcast booth. ... I guess HN is the new Reddit. Downvotes, not a single response. You can do better, HN.

tb_technical 1y ago
Some equipment is drop in - hooking up an audio output to a keyed radio is only occasionally difficult. You see a lot of these solutions in the HAM radio space. The actual radio equipment is a tad more sophisticated - and in poor areas (where it's barely hanging on) is held together with spit, glue, and prayers (exaggeration, joke, but aspects of it are true). Believe it or not, the RF cables are (in many cases) more expensive than the radios themselves. Background: Computer systems, radio systems, General class HAM, but certainly not an expert.
jasonlotito 1y ago
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Stealthisbook 1y ago

The justification for many of these stations is emergency preparedness. They're maintained for the ability to receive and transmit emergency alerts despite power outages or transmission line cuts. The daily programming is mostly incidental beyond maintaining listenership

frugalmail 1y ago
The burden on taxpayers would be significantly less if it was strictly satellite coverage for use during emergencies.
- mindslight 1y ago
  The burden on taxpayers would be significantly less if the government simply paid to run the system rather than additionally funding two sets of attorneys to duke it out in court to make an out of control executive actually execute the law. It's getting harder and harder to believe that this fascist movement was ever earnestly about saving money.
  - throwaway173738 1y ago
    Erasing the Federal Government is the motte and saving money is the bailey.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      It doesn't look like the Federal Government is being erased. In fact, it and its debt are rapidly growing. I'd say the motte is autocratic authoritarianism (ie fascism).
- iso1631 1y ago
  The cost is having the satellite systems in place, working, and available. You don't save money by not using the tiny amount of bandwidth when it isn't "an emergency"
- VBprogrammer 1y ago

ndiddy 1y ago

The stations that rely on CPB funding as a main source of income are the "others" who repeat the NPR content over the radio. They're tiny stations (typically 1-2 full-time employees) that mainly serve communities where internet streaming is not a viable option due to spotty cell coverage.

jandrese 1y ago
Also, receiving internet service requires some kind of paid monthly plan. The cheapest plans have very low data caps. Streaming audio over them is much less practical for the end users than having a simple radio receiver. Radio waves also propagate further than cell broadcasts.
- esseph 1y ago
  What ISP still has data caps that isn't a LTE carrier?
  - throwaway94275 1y ago
    Comcast.
    - eurleif 1y ago
      Not on new plans as of earlier this year: https://www.pcmag.com/news/comcasts-new-plans-dump-the-data-caps https://www.pcmag.com/news/comcasts-new-plans-dump-the-data-... But Cox still has data caps.
  - jandrese 1y ago
    When you're talking about rural Internet, especially in the developing world, it is cell coverage. Wired infrastructure is expensive and when the population density is low it's unaffordable.
- xp84 1y ago
  The OP here, in their defense, wasn't talking about just operating an internet radio to replace public broadcasting and telling listeners to just get a data planpay for Internet and go online to listen. They were suggesting TCP/IP backhaul to get the signals to the remote radio stations, and rebroadcasting on the radio. Presumably this would be feasible for most populated areas, but broadband availability is so crap outside of urban/suburban, I bet half of those really remote stations are already getting their Internet over Starlink or Hughesnet. Now, I think there are plenty of reasons that the satellites (which are already in the sky, presumably) are probably more robust in the face of emergencies than the entire Internet infrastructure. If I may steelman a good counterargument: "The Internet itself is supposed to be resilient to nuclear war!" True, but that doesn't mean outages of critical pinch points like AWS, Azure and Cloudflare don't constantly affect even services like GitHub that have huge budgets. A fully robust Internet solution with a ton of high-uptime redundancy in many POPs nationwide would likely cost more than maintaining the satellite systems.

woodruffw 1y ago

The US is pretty large, and has large areas without reliable cellular or wired Internet connections. Public radio ensures accessibility in those areas.

almosthere 1y ago
I wonder if we should just pass a bill that requires Starlink or Amazon Leo to use 0.5% of their bandwidth for low quality (but higher than radio) free access to Inet Radio streams in some special way. Then start building out the infra in vehicles.
- woodruffw 1y ago
  There are plenty of places in the US that don't have reliable satellite access either (not because of orbital coverage, but because of geographic features like mountains/deep valleys). (And these aren't remote/unpopulated areas: you can find plenty of satellite dead zones 2-3 hours outside of NYC in the Catskills.)
  - MostlyStable 1y ago
    Honestly curious: how many of those satellite dead-zones have good radio coverage? In my various times driving places, I've often lost radio signal in a sufficiently remote place where I 100% would have had satellite coverage. Those same features that can block satellite will also block (some kinds of) radio, if you don't have a broadcast tower at the top of the ridge or something. Yes, I agree that satellite coverage is not 100%. But neither is radio.
    - woodruffw 1y ago
      It's definitely a mixed bag, but the areas I'm thinking of have decent FM radio coverage (from local stations that affiliate with public radio). AM coverage tends to be good regardless. I've had the same experience as you around remote places, but those places were generally the flat-and-desolate kind :-)
    - 1y ago

jcrawfordor 1y ago

A major reason for the enduring use of satellite in radio distribution is that, for live events like sports or (more common in NPR's case) political events, the satellite system provides appreciably lower latency than distribution over the internet. Reduced jitter also allows for generally higher reliability, you never hear the radio station buffering. There are options for low-latency land-based connectivity but at the scale of PRSS, the satellite system is cheaper to operate. Most stations can also receive this programming over the internet, another reason for the satellite system is that it provides a completely redundant path for programming delivery. This is important for general reliability but especially so in an emergency. Historically, radio networks distributed their programming over leased telephone lines. Satellite took over because it was cheaper. That gap has probably narrowed as terrestrial communications infrastructure continues to expand, but the internet struggles with low-latency real-time media, and an arrangement like leased fiber wavelengths to member stations would still be more expensive than the satellite system. There's a lot of member stations in a lot of places, satellite reaches all of them at once.

dtgriscom 1y ago
> the satellite system provides appreciably lower latency than distribution over the internet Is that true? Round trip to/from geostationary satellites is about 240ms. And, with most stations using HD encoding, which adds 8 seconds to the transmission delay, any network latency isn't going to be that important anyway.
- throwaway173738 1y ago
  It’s not about the latency between when words are spoken and when they’re heard, it’s snot when a packet is sent and when it’s received. There’s a lot of jitter and you really don’t want intermittent drops to cause people to miss parts of your programming.

standardUser 1y ago

Not during a major earthquake or hurricane.