Yes, I know I should care. With all the hubbub over portable subscriptions offering “downloads to-go,” I should be more excited. After all, here is a way to cut the cord that tethers me to my computer and stroll free with huge libraries of music at my command—all for the price of a mere cable channel. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

It’s a hassle, that’s what. Until now, I have been eager to try each new offering put forth by the online music services. This one, however, is a bridge too far. To even try it, I am required to buy a portable music player, and choose from a short list of compatible players, none of which I consider desirable. Then there is the prospect of managing a collection of rented downloads, side-by-side with downloads that I own: downloading them to my PC, transferring them to a portable music player, and keeping track of which ones I can burn to CD and which ones I can’t. This would be a hassle even if I didn’t stumble over the glitches that are plaguing users of the current offerings. Did I tell you the disk space is running low on my laptop? I already have a lot of music on it, and don’t have room to add a huge library of rented tracks.

This isn’t an issue with a streaming jukebox service like “Rhapsody Classic” (the basic Rhapsody service). Somebody else worries about storing and managing the files. With an online jukebox I just dial-up the music and play it. I do most of my listening at home and at work, where I have access to a reliable broadband connection, and I spend little time in the car, so the lack of a portable jukebox doesn’t hurt me. Until portable subscriptions are less of a hassle, I’ll be waiting for a wireless version of the streaming jukebox.