Internet radio station costs

I've been asked to advise someone about how much the distribution
costs would be for an Internet radio station which could potentially
have a lot of listeners once it's up and running. The costs I've been
quoted are:

Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the audio
from the studio to the server

Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
more)

Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the cost/Mbps
falls in price the more bandwidth you use

+ the cost of the media server software and employing someone to set
the stuff up and look after it

Have I missed any costs out, or does that sound about right?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> I've been asked to advise someone about how much the distribution
> costs would be for an Internet radio station which could potentially
> have a lot of listeners once it's up and running. The costs I've been
> quoted are:
>
> Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the audio
> from the studio to the server
>
> Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
> more)
>
> Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the cost/Mbps
> falls in price the more bandwidth you use
>
> + the cost of the media server software and employing someone to set
> the stuff up and look after it
>
> Have I missed any costs out, or does that sound about right?
>
>
>
Not sure what exactly your are taking from where to where.


Oh, is it that what you want is

- a low bandwidth link to a server to upload stuff..
- a high bandwidth server, to cope with many listeners
- lots of listeners all on ADSL?

If so your layout is sane, apart from the upload link. That could be
ADSL (448k) or premium ADSL (800Kbps upload).

Full CD quality audio is IIRC 12 bit sampled at 22Khz. = 264Kbps. If its
compressed in anyway that comes way down, so a single ADSL channel is
enough for a single audio feed. The only issue there is contention and
occasional packet loss, but if you are not doing it in utterly real
time, its fine: you can buffer on the server.


The other way is to put the server at the studio, and have a fat pipe to
the ISP. depending on relative costs and bandwidth, that might be cheaper.

using ADSL for the uplink means that initial costs are low, which is
always good, for startup businesses.

If there is more than one 'station' consider more than one ADSL link.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:42:27 -0000, DAB sounds worse than FM
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I've been asked to advise someone about how much the distribution
> costs would be for an Internet radio station which could potentially
> have a lot of listeners once it's up and running. The costs I've been
> quoted are:
>
> Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the audio
> from the studio to the server
>
> Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
> more)
>
> Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the cost/Mbps
> falls in price the more bandwidth you use
>
> + the cost of the media server software and employing someone to set
> the stuff up and look after it
>
> Have I missed any costs out, or does that sound about right?

You have missed licence fees, potentially a significant cost
(particularly if you intend to broadcast outside the UK):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...newmedia.radio

--
Anthony Edwards
(E-Mail Removed)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the audio
> from the studio to the server

What codec/bitrate are you planning to use? I've never heard any streaming
over 320kbps, for which an ordinary BT ADSL would do, failing that Be do
1.3Mbps or 2.5Mbps upload.

> Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
> more)
>
> Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the cost/Mbps
> falls in price the more bandwidth you use

Instead of doing the server a la carte, I reckon you'd be better off looking
at a hosting provider who can specialise in hosting internet radio, if not
for the long term then at least to get you going. If there's going to be a
lot of listeners, presumably there's going to be a dependent revenue stream
as well, so it would be worth investing in some redundancy. Of course
you're not going to know if a hosted service is cheaper than DIY until you
tot the costs up.

> + the cost of the media server software and employing someone to set
> the stuff up and look after it

Shoutcast/Icecast server is free anyway.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
14:39:50 up 12 days, 16:52, 2 users, load average: 0.17, 0.18, 0.12
They call me titless because I have no tits

On 2008-12-17, The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Full CD quality audio is IIRC 12 bit sampled at 22Khz. = 264Kbps.

Full (uncompressed) CD is 16-bit stereo at 44.1kHz = 1411.2kbps.

Your choice of codec where you stream from will be significant. I'm
currently listening to DI.FM on a 24kbps AAC+ stream and it sounds
surprisingly clear - and in stereo. See for yourself:
http://www.di.fm/aacplus/vocaltrance.pls - Winamp can play this out of
the box, as can Xine in Linux.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/

"Soruk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> On 2008-12-17, The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Full CD quality audio is IIRC 12 bit sampled at 22Khz. = 264Kbps.
>
> Full (uncompressed) CD is 16-bit stereo at 44.1kHz = 1411.2kbps.
>
> Your choice of codec where you stream from will be significant. I'm
> currently listening to DI.FM on a 24kbps AAC+ stream and it sounds
> surprisingly clear - and in stereo.


Do you listen to the 24 kbps AAC+ rather than the 96 kbps MP3 di.fm
streams?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> I've been asked to advise someone about how much the distribution
>> costs would be for an Internet radio station which could
>> potentially
>> have a lot of listeners once it's up and running. The costs I've
>> been
>> quoted are:
>>
>> Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the audio
>> from the studio to the server
>>
>> Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
>> more)
>>
>> Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the
>> cost/Mbps
>> falls in price the more bandwidth you use
>>
>> + the cost of the media server software and employing someone to
>> set
>> the stuff up and look after it
>>
>> Have I missed any costs out, or does that sound about right?
>>
>>
>>
> Not sure what exactly your are taking from where to where.


Uncompressed audio from the studio to the encoder in the data centre.


> Oh, is it that what you want is
>
> - a low bandwidth link to a server to upload stuff..
> - a high bandwidth server, to cope with many listeners
> - lots of listeners all on ADSL?


Yeah, that's about it.


> If so your layout is sane, apart from the upload link. That could be
> ADSL (448k) or premium ADSL (800Kbps upload).


This is intended to be for a "proper" radio station, so the audio
would have to get to the encoder via a leased line rather than be
subject to best effort via the Internet just in case the stream would
buffer en route.


> The other way is to put the server at the studio, and have a fat
> pipe to
> the ISP. depending on relative costs and bandwidth, that might be
> cheaper.


Using a low bandwidth link and encoding the audio at the server was
cheaper when I worked it out.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Anthony Edwards" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:42:27 -0000, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I've been asked to advise someone about how much the distribution
>> costs would be for an Internet radio station which could
>> potentially
>> have a lot of listeners once it's up and running. The costs I've
>> been
>> quoted are:
>>
>> Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the
>> audio
>> from the studio to the server
>>
>> Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
>> more)
>>
>> Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the
>> cost/Mbps
>> falls in price the more bandwidth you use
>>
>> + the cost of the media server software and employing someone to
>> set
>> the stuff up and look after it
>>
>> Have I missed any costs out, or does that sound about right?
>
> You have missed licence fees, potentially a significant cost
> (particularly if you intend to broadcast outside the UK):
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...newmedia.radio


I woudln't say licensing fees would come under 'distribution costs',
which is all I've been asked to look into.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"alexd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>> Low bandwidth leased line at £12k pa + ~£10k setup to get the audio
>> from the studio to the server
>
> What codec/bitrate are you planning to use?


AAC+ at very low bit rate to keep the bandwidth costs as low as
possible.


> I've never heard any streaming
> over 320kbps, for which an ordinary BT ADSL would do, failing that
> Be do
> 1.3Mbps or 2.5Mbps upload.


This is for a "proper" radio station, so it'd have to use reliable
technologies where possible, so it couldn't use the Internet for
gettign the audio to the server just in case the audio buffered, whcih
would leave the audio buffering for all listeners.


>> Server co-location at ~£100 pm (or maybe managed hosting for a bit
>> more)
>>
>> Internet bandwidth starting at £15 / Mbps / month - and the
>> cost/Mbps
>> falls in price the more bandwidth you use
>
> Instead of doing the server a la carte, I reckon you'd be better off
> looking at a hosting provider who can specialise in hosting internet
> radio, if not for the long term then at least to get you going.


I looked at that initially, but they don't scale past the kind of 1000
listeners mark, so it worked out better value for money to use a
dedicated server.


> If
> there's going to be a lot of listeners, presumably there's going to
> be a
> dependent revenue stream as well, so it would be worth investing in
> some
> redundancy.


Agreed.


> Of course you're not going to know if a hosted service is
> cheaper than DIY until you tot the costs up.
>
>> + the cost of the media server software and employing someone to
>> set
>> the stuff up and look after it
>
> Shoutcast/Icecast server is free anyway.


Would the Shoutcast server be good enough for a relatively large
number of listeners? Not many proper radio stations use it for their
Internet streams.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> This is for a "proper" radio station, so it'd have to use reliable
> technologies where possible, so it couldn't use the Internet for
> gettign the audio to the server just in case the audio buffered, whcih
> would leave the audio buffering for all listeners.

I'm not sure I understand that logic, as you're never going to eliminate
buffering when delivering audio over the internet.

> I looked at that initially, but they don't scale past the kind of 1000
> listeners mark, so it worked out better value for money to use a
> dedicated server.

How many listeners are you expecting? If I were doing it for a large number
of people, I'd use a few service providers and use DNS to coarsely load
balance where the traffic goes to [eg streamserver.mystation.fm would
resolve to different IPs based on load].

> Would the Shoutcast server be good enough for a relatively large
> number of listeners? Not many proper radio stations use it for their
> Internet streams.

I assume by 'proper' you mean RF broadcast? All the stations on the front
page of shoutcast.net claim to have >2500 current listeners, although I
don't know how to independently verify that. The suspiciously similar di.fm
and sky.fm both have large numbers of channels and claim to have large
numbers of listeners.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
13:55:20 up 13 days, 16:08, 1 user, load average: 0.34, 0.20, 0.11
They call me titless because I have no tits