Forum Moderators: phranque
I've been researching for them alternative ways of hosting streamed audio content, and am wondering why there is such a wealth of opinion that only streamed audio servers are good enough for the task.
The station involved has until now had a maximum number of concurrent listeners of 46, on launch day. Since then the maximum has been just 11. However, until now they were being charged for a maximum of 50. I have succeeded in agreeing with the provider that 30 is adequate, but that is their minimum package, even though experience over almost a year suggests it is ludicrously overstating usage.
Why is the hosting fraternity so dedicated to concurrent listeners? It's a bit like walking into a restaurant and being charged for a 5 course meal before you've even decided what (or whether) to order. Why not charge for bandwidth used?
Install an audio server on a VPS or dedicated server located centrally to your audience.
You will have to weight the cost of bandwidth vs. the cost of your present service. Without knowing the bitrate you are using, it's hard to estimate your bandwidth needs.
The reason for the emphasis on "concurrent listeners" is probably because the hosting services are using licensed servers, and concurrent listeners is an easy way to license servers. The hosting company has to pay the server license based on concurrent users, and they'd be taking a risk to base your payment on bandwidth alone.
It's just irritating that there seems no third party hosting available which is based on common sense.
