View Full Version : Sirius buying XM?
Story Link (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-02-20T003235Z_01_N19422718_RTRUKOC_0_US-XM-SIRIUS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)
I guess I don't really care as long as I can still recieve the handfull of Sirius stations I regularly listen to.
But how could this be approved after the Dish/Directv merger, which I suported, was not allowed? :confused:
Andrew Longman
02-20-07, 10:57 AM
But how could this be approved after the Dish/Directv merger, which I suported, was not allowed? :confused:
I may not be be approved, but Mel Karmazine (sp) usually gets what he sets out to get.
The logic is that radio is/will be facing all sorts of new competition from digital, internet and GPS based radio. Even conventional radio is fighting back with much more commercial free time. Given that video requires so much more bandwidth it is not as open to other competition.
TrueBrit
02-20-07, 10:58 AM
The FCC regulates the airwaves. Sirius and XM use satellites to beam signals directly to receivers. You cannot get either service "over the air" as it were, hence no fines for Stern when he gets all colourful at Sirius so why the FCC has anything to say about it has me confused...
Insomniac
02-20-07, 11:03 AM
The FCC regulates the airwaves. Sirius and XM use satellites to beam signals directly to receivers. You cannot get either service "over the air" as it were, hence no fines for Stern when he gets all colourful at Sirius so why the FCC has anything to say about it has me confused...
It seems the FCC hands out licenses still. I also presume the FTC would also have to approve the merger.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said the agency would review the deal but "the hurdle here, however, would be high as the commission originally prohibited one company from holding the only two satellite radio licenses."
The FCC regulates the airwaves. Sirius and XM use satellites to beam signals directly to receivers. You cannot get either service "over the air" as it were, hence no fines for Stern when he gets all colourful at Sirius so why the FCC has anything to say about it has me confused...
Somewhere along the way, the FCC was given control, I assume by congress, over the placement, content and licensing of satellites beaming things to earth.
Sean O'Gorman
02-20-07, 12:41 PM
I'm not a fan of this merger at all, unless it meant Stern gets moved to afternoon drive, or maybe overnight. :gomer:
WickerBill
02-20-07, 12:46 PM
I'm not a fan of this merger at all, unless it meant Stern gets moved to afternoon drive, or maybe overnight. :gomer:
Then your option is they both end up closing shop, or selling airtime AND raising prices.
Insomniac
02-20-07, 12:51 PM
Then your option is they both end up closing shop, or selling airtime AND raising prices.
They need more content to differentiate themselves from AM/FM radio. They need to look at the TV industry. The solution for cable wasn't the elimination of commercials, it was adding content. That's why people will pay for cable when there is also free OTA TV.
extramundane
02-20-07, 01:10 PM
I'm not a fan of this merger at all, unless it meant Stern gets moved to afternoon drive, or maybe overnight. :gomer:
You and the other 3 members of the Opie & Anthony Fan Club must be crushed.
If it goes through, I doubt it will be anything other than Business As Usual for the flagship names & shows. I just hope it doesn't mean a decrease in sponsorship dollars for Andretti-Green. :tony:
Sean O'Gorman
02-20-07, 01:50 PM
Then your option is they both end up closing shop, or selling airtime AND raising prices.
I'd pay up to $25 for what I'm getting now from XM. I wouldn't pay $1 for Sirius.
I've had both. For what I listen to, no difference between them.
The FCC does a whole lot more than spanking providers for uttering George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. They control all transmit licences, from DC to light. They determine bandwidth, bands, modulations, specifications, interference, power, everything for US radio (TV, data, microwave ovens, etc.) transmissions. look on the back of any electronic device. FCC will be there.
I would consider a satellite subscription if they were consolidated.
I was listening to Sirius on DishNetwork TV the other day. Me and the oldest g. were building a desk, jamming. He learned a few new words that day...:laugh:
Insomniac
02-20-07, 04:42 PM
I don't think there's anything on there that I'd be willing to plunk money down for. I just use Yahoo! Music Engine, FairUse4WM and an iPod and I'm happy.
WickerBill
02-20-07, 05:05 PM
Starting March 1, I'll add Kornheiser's radio show to my XM listenings... along with quite a bit of the "specialty" channels. Indianapolis radio (like most medium markets) stinks.
extramundane
02-20-07, 06:04 PM
I've had both. For what I listen to, no difference between them.
I subscribe to Sirius and occasionally listen to XM via DirecTV. The handful of stations I listen to on Sirius either have no real equivalent (that I can find) on XM, or the XM version truly isn't to my liking. That said, the satellite radio thing has so turned me off on terrestrial radio, that if Sirius ceased to exist tomorrow, I can't imagine not immediately becoming an XM subscriber.
I don't think there's anything on there that I'd be willing to plunk money down for. I just use Yahoo! Music Engine, FairUse4WM and an iPod and I'm happy.
I didn't think I'd ever care to subscribe either, 'til the missus got me Sirius as a birthday present. I still download music for my mp3 player on a regular basis, and Sirius has helped weed out some of the dross and turned me on to some stuff I'd probably never thought to download in the first place.
and Sirius has helped weed out some of the dross and turned me on to some stuff I'd probably never thought to download in the first place.
Yeah, that's what XM has done for me. I used to be able to find new music on local radio....
The "Live @ XM" shows are great, and I've downloaded quite a few new artists from that show.
I subscribe to Sirius and occasionally listen to XM via DirecTV. The handful of stations I listen to on Sirius either have no real equivalent (that I can find) on XM, or the XM version truly isn't to my liking. That said, the satellite radio thing has so turned me off on terrestrial radio, that if Sirius ceased to exist tomorrow, I can't imagine not immediately becoming an XM subscriber.
I'm easy to please, a few classic rock stations and CNN and Foxnews and I'm set. If they keep building it into the cars I buy I will keep subscribing.
But I still don't see why they think the government will treat this any different then the Dish/Directv deal.
Insomniac
02-20-07, 07:48 PM
I didn't think I'd ever care to subscribe either, 'til the missus got me Sirius as a birthday present. I still download music for my mp3 player on a regular basis, and Sirius has helped weed out some of the dross and turned me on to some stuff I'd probably never thought to download in the first place.
I think that's where Yahoo! Music comes in for me. I generally hear new stuff listening to their launchcast radio stations. (I listened to launchcast before I got Y!M, but when I got an MP3 player it made the most sense, $60/yr for a lot of music.) When I'm out, I use the iPod loaded with music I like.
I tend to tire out on talk radio. I'll listen to someone for a while and then get kind of disinterested when it becomes the same thing over and over.
I subscribe to Sirius and occasionally listen to XM via DirecTV. The handful of stations I listen to on Sirius either have no real equivalent (that I can find) on XM, or the XM version truly isn't to my liking. That said, the satellite radio thing has so turned me off on terrestrial radio, that if Sirius ceased to exist tomorrow, I can't imagine not immediately becoming an XM subscriber.
I didn't think I'd ever care to subscribe either, 'til the missus got me Sirius as a birthday present. I still download music for my mp3 player on a regular basis, and Sirius has helped weed out some of the dross and turned me on to some stuff I'd probably never thought to download in the first place.
I'm in the same situation. I've had my Sirius since Xmas. I have DTV and listen to XM. I like some of XM's stuff.
race chica
02-20-07, 11:30 PM
I'd pay up to $25 for what I'm getting now from XM. I wouldn't pay $1 for Sirius.
Your just jelous because Sirius was Jamie's Sposor for a while...
Mark it down, this will never happen like the Dish and DirecTV merger got squashed.
-Kevin
a read regarding the merger: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1667&CFID=3707972&CFTOKEN=15493675
On Monday, the country's two satellite radio services -- Sirius and XM -- announced that they had finally agreed to merge. The move raises a number of questions, not the least of which is whether they can get this deal approved by the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department. But regulatory issues aside, what prompted these two archrivals to embrace each other, what do they expect to get out of it, and what does a combined company mean for consumers who currently pay a subscription fee of $12.95 a month? Knowledge@Wharton asked for comments from Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader, whom we talked with first, and business and public policy professor Gerald Faulhaber.
From my understanding, even if they merge the existing owners of XM or Sirius radios will not be able to receive each others signals. What they would do to start with is transmit the same program through both signals. Eventually in a year or two a radio would come out that supports both signals.
I do subscribe to XM (came with the car), and am spoiled by the no commercials and best of all, no static. On the rare occassions I lose signal is when I'm parked on the freeway next to a semi.
approved: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpcaW34bTLs1hXU9zx16zSXEHrCQD8VJVPPG2
Beat me to it Ank.
I don't really care one way or the other although I imagine subscription rates will increase eventually. I just wish they had let the Satellite TV merger go through.
ferrarigod
03-25-08, 12:50 AM
wait, the government went from funding these 2 for competition reasons to allowing them to merge. so a monopoly is the best thing for the market?
solid government planning on display.
i'll stick to listening to CD's and iPod. I don't really need the IRL network.
i'll stick to listening to CD's and iPod. I don't really need the IRL network.
and thats why its not a monopoly. there are so many different choices for mobile audio including what you mentioned plus am/fm, hdradio, internet radio, etc.
and the beauty of a free market is that if prices rise, a competitor may see it as an opportunity to launch a competing satellite. of course its never that simple, and usually the government or other businesses get in the way of that happening, but thats a whole different argument.
Not if the oHIo AG (and others) gets his way:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/03/28/SATELLITE.ART_ART_03-28-08_C12_HF9P19O.html?sid=101
The proposed merger of the two satellite-radio companies would create a "monolithic entity" that could abuse its power by charging listeners more for less programming, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said yesterday.
Dann joined counterparts from 10 other states in a letter calling on the Federal Communications Commission to study more closely the implications of the pending merger of XM Satellite Radio with Sirius Satellite Radio.
-Kevin
Insomniac
03-28-08, 03:23 PM
Not if the oHIo AG (and others) gets his way:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/03/28/SATELLITE.ART_ART_03-28-08_C12_HF9P19O.html?sid=101
-Kevin
Good for them. The merger was OK'd way too easily by the DOJ. The FCC should make them broadcast some free content like weather and traffic and other public safety stuff as a condition to the merger.
Good for them. The merger was OK'd way too easily by the DOJ. The FCC should make them broadcast some free content like weather and traffic and other public safety stuff as a condition to the merger.
you may get something along the lines of your bleeding heart wish:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D923O02G1&show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Federal Communications Commission member who sought further concessions in a pending satellite radio buyout withdrew his offer Wednesday after it failed to draw support.
Democratic commissioner Jonathan Adelstein voted against Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.'s proposed takeover of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. The vote of the five-member regulatory body now stands at 2-2, with Republican member Deborah Taylor Tate still undecided.
Adelstein released a statement Wednesday, explaining the reason for his negative vote.
"I was hoping to forge a bipartisan solution that would offer consumers more diversity in programming, better price protection, expanded choices among innovative devices and real competition with digital radio," it read. "Instead, it appears they're going to get a monopoly with window dressing. We really missed a great opportunity to reach a bipartisan agreement that would have benefited the American people."
Last week Adelstein said he would cast a third and clinching vote approving the buyout if the companies agreed to cap prices for six years and make one-quarter of their satellite capacity available for public interest programming, among other conditions.
The companies have agreed to submit to a number of conditions, including a three-year price cap, setting aside 8 percent of radio spectrum for public interest and minority programming and adoption of an "open radio" standard, that was less specific than what Adelstein was proposing.
I dont get why they even have to set aside 8% of their spectrum for public interest. Why can't a business just operate on its own? Its not like Satellite Radio is an integral part of people's lives, that they can't just cancel their service if they no longer like it.
And Minority programming? WTF does that even mean? Great quote by Artie Lang,
This reminds me of what Artie Lange said a couple months ago when this started to break, "isn't it racist to think that black people don't listen to Classic Vinyl"
Still 1 person to vote, shes a republican. The other 2 republicans have voted in favor.
Done deal. Public interest == community TeeVee Can't you just hear Wayne's World on satellite radio? :gomer:
-Kevin
Insomniac
07-23-08, 08:03 PM
you may get something along the lines of your bleeding heart wish:
I dont get why they even have to set aside 8% of their spectrum for public interest. Why can't a business just operate on its own? Its not like Satellite Radio is an integral part of people's lives, that they can't just cancel their service if they no longer like it.
I'm not bleeding for it. It is not in the consumer's interest to have only 1 satellite radio company. This has been borne out time and again. The government has an opportunity to get something for all consumers on the condition of approving the merger. There's a reason they need approval to merge. If you're going to let every odustry merge into one company, you might as well just let the government run everything. Or just let a select few run those companies and get insanely rich like in Russia (or India).
Me personally, I hate living out in a small city where I have no competition for TV, telephone or radio. My brother can get Internet 7-8x faster than me (I have 1.5 Mbps DSL), didgital/HD cable and unlimited nationwide telephone service with all the usual features for under $100/mo. I pay $85 for the same phone service and slower Internet. My DTV bill is almost $75/mo. No competition is working great for me!
Edit: I also love people who talk about free markets (I'm not saying you are one of them) but then also want to have monopolies.
Edit: I also love people who talk about free markets (I'm not saying you are one of them) but then also want to have monopolies.
If the market can only support one company,of any type of business,then a Monopoly is what you'll get.
Fortunately,satellite radio is not the only option for listening to music,talk,sports etc.
cameraman
07-23-08, 11:36 PM
Fortunately,satellite radio is not the only option for listening to music,talk,sports etc.
That depends on where you live. For folks out in the country it is the only game in town.
extramundane
07-23-08, 11:45 PM
If the market can only support one company,of any type of business,then a Monopoly is what you'll get.
...and it's what we're going to have, one way or another, before much longer. If the merger doesn't go through, one of the companies won't last long.
Frankly, I suspect if Clear Channel didn't have such a powerful lobby, this thing would have been greenlighted ages ago.
I'm not bleeding for it. It is not in the consumer's interest to have only 1 satellite radio company.
If the merger doesn't go through, then one of the companies would likely fail. Failure means your left with 1 company, and a monopoly by the other! :eek: !!!?!?!?!
The government has an opportunity to get something for all consumers on the condition of approving the merger.
How is forcing them to give up 8% of their spectrum in the government interest? If the companies dont offer programming that people want, people would stop subscribing.
Me personally, I hate living out in a small city where I have no competition for TV, telephone or radio.
My guess is you can blame the government for that. I grew up in a city where the city council restricted the number of cable companies.
I pay $85 for the same phone service and slower Internet. My DTV bill is almost $75/mo. No competition is working great for me
Well thats your fault. You need to take advantage of some coupons or promotions or something. I use so many promos that my DirecTV bills have ranged anywhere from $22-50 per month, but never more. I have the 250 channel package + HD + DVR + an extra receiver + free Showtime. Mine wont be 70 until Im out of the 2 year contract, and then I'm switching to Dish, or at least threatening to do so. ;)
I also love people who talk about free markets (I'm not saying you are one of them) but then also want to have monopolies.
I am one of these people. If a monopoly raises prices it creates an incentive for other companies to enter the market. I disagree with government created monopolies though, such as telco and cable companys.
BTW, its also ******** that I get charged tax on directv, but was never charged that when I had Cox cable in my apartment.
That depends on where you live. For folks out in the country it is the only game in town.
yet 5 years ago there was no option for them. how did those people ever survive without satellite radio???? :confused: ???
Insomniac
07-24-08, 10:34 AM
If the market can only support one company,of any type of business,then a Monopoly is what you'll get.
Fortunately,satellite radio is not the only option for listening to music,talk,sports etc.
Satellite radio also has a lot of exclusive programming. They pay $millions to get that programming. So there are differences between terrestrial and satellite radio. They also dug themselves into this hole by laying out astronomical money to get the exclusive programming. They aren't merging to lower prices for consumers.
I'm not opposed to it, my main point is the system was set up in a way that these things require approval from the government. They should be looking out for the best interest of everybody when determining whether or not to approve mergers. I think the consumers will get screwed if they just approve it with no conditions.
Insomniac
07-24-08, 10:53 AM
If the merger doesn't go through, then one of the companies would likely fail. Failure means your left with 1 company, and a monopoly by the other! :eek: !!!?!?!?!
What is wrong with a business failing? Then someone else can buy it and try to compete. Why is 1 company going to fail? Probably mis-management more than a lack of consumers.
How is forcing them to give up 8% of their spectrum in the government interest? If the companies dont offer programming that people want, people would stop subscribing.
It's not in the government's interest. There interest should be the entire population. How is it in the consumer's interest that they be allowed to merge?
My guess is you can blame the government for that. I grew up in a city where the city council restricted the number of cable companies.
No restriction here. I can get telephone from Cox, AT&T and some other company. Shockingly, the prices are all the same! I doubt AT&T will be bringing U-Verse here any time soon. I'm not sure on cable though.
Well thats your fault. You need to take advantage of some coupons or promotions or something. I use so many promos that my DirecTV bills have ranged anywhere from $22-50 per month, but never more. I have the 250 channel package + HD + DVR + an extra receiver + free Showtime. Mine wont be 70 until Im out of the 2 year contract, and then I'm switching to Dish, or at least threatening to do so. ;)
I'd love to know what promos you use. I can get $10/off for a year when my contract is up by complaining about price hikes, but in a month, that will end along with the HD Access Fee discount, so my bill will go up $20. $50 for Total Choice, $6 for a DVR, $5 for a second receiver, $10 for HD plus tax. Cox isn't any better. They have a you need us, we don't need you philosophy. Their incentive to switch is $20 off for 2 months!
I am one of these people. If a monopoly raises prices it creates an incentive for other companies to enter the market. I disagree with government created monopolies though, such as telco and cable companys.
BTW, its also ******** that I get charged tax on directv, but was never charged that when I had Cox cable in my apartment.
So let them merge, drive up prices, then someone else might decide to compete? This benefits the companies and their shareholders. If that is the basis for approving mergers, then they shouldn't even bother with an approval process.
Cox will gladly charge me franchise fees and other random taxes. DTV charges a sales tax it seems.
What is wrong with a business failing? Then someone else can buy it and try to compete. Why is 1 company going to fail? Probably mis-management more than a lack of consumers.
Nothing is wrong with a business failing. But if it leaves you with only 1 satellite radio provider, then how is that any different from the merger?
It's not in the government's interest. There interest should be the entire population. How is it in the consumer's interest that they be allowed to merge?
Since when does our government care about the entire population? They care about themselves. How is 8% of the spectrum for public use and minority programming in the benefit of the entire population? I don't benefit from that.
No restriction here. I can get telephone from Cox, AT&T and some other company. Shockingly, the prices are all the same! I doubt AT&T will be bringing U-Verse here any time soon. I'm not sure on cable though.
How about Vonage or another internet based phone service?
I'd love to know what promos you use. I can get $10/off for a year when my contract is up by complaining about price hikes, but in a month, that will end along with the HD Access Fee discount, so my bill will go up $20. $50 for Total Choice, $6 for a DVR, $5 for a second receiver, $10 for HD plus tax. Cox isn't any better. They have a you need us, we don't need you philosophy. Their incentive to switch is $20 off for 2 months!
Free Showtime as long as I keep my bill in good standing.
$10 off for 24 months with AAA discount (dont have to be a AAA member for this, just have to give them part of a AAA account number)
$10 off for 5 months for referral (actually 6 months because they wouldnt give me the referral discount, and I complained so much that I got 6 months off)
$18 off for first year - promotion at the time of signing up
$20 off one month for signing up for auto bill pay, e-bills.
So let them merge, drive up prices, then someone else might decide to compete? This benefits the companies and their shareholders. If that is the basis for approving mergers, then they shouldn't even bother with an approval process.
Should the same be done then for small businesses? Small businesses close doors all the time, prices change all the time, barriers to entry change all the time, its the beauty of a free market.
Cox will gladly charge me franchise fees and other random taxes. DTV charges a sales tax it seems.
Cox fees are no where near as high as Ohio sales tax.
Time Warner, the cable provider that is now my only option since moving to Avon, goes as far as to charge an extra fee for a remote control. F that. Im sure if they had real competition from other cable providers, UVerse, and FIOS, in addition to just the satellite companies, we wouldn't see crap like that.
Insomniac
07-24-08, 05:12 PM
Nothing is wrong with a business failing. But if it leaves you with only 1 satellite radio provider, then how is that any different from the merger?
The difference would be they 1. didn't get what they wanted and 2. someone else could pick up the company and give it another go.
Since when does our government care about the entire population? They care about themselves. How is 8% of the spectrum for public use and minority programming in the benefit of the entire population? I don't benefit from that.
I didn't say they cared about the whole population, but they are supposed to.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution
...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
--Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
How do you benefit from higher prices? How are you hurt if the combined entity has nearly 300 channels and has to make 8% (Note, I said public services, not public radio, so 8% is way more than needed) available for other use?
How about Vonage or another internet based phone service?
I'd have to switch to Cable Internet (no naked DSL here) and Cox has download caps. I download more than the 40 GB a month. (60 GB if I pay for the highest priced package.) DSL is slower, but I'm not limited in any way.
Free Showtime as long as I keep my bill in good standing.
$10 off for 24 months with AAA discount (dont have to be a AAA member for this, just have to give them part of a AAA account number)
$10 off for 5 months for referral (actually 6 months because they wouldnt give me the referral discount, and I complained so much that I got 6 months off)
$18 off for first year - promotion at the time of signing up
$20 off one month for signing up for auto bill pay, e-bills.
I'll look into some of those. I've been with DTV for 5 years, I got my best deal when I signed up. Since I've managed to get $10/off every year for a year when my contract runs out. But to go to HD, it was 2 years. I did get HD free for 1 year, $10 off/mo, some movie channels and NFLST SuperFan free. Just now all that is running out, and I still have a year on my contract. How did you get Showtime? I pay my bill every month on time for 5 years. Never got that offer.
Should the same be done then for small businesses? Small businesses close doors all the time, prices change all the time, barriers to entry change all the time, its the beauty of a free market.
I worked for a small business and we still needed U.S. Government approval to be acquired. Small businesses merging don't create monopolies.
Cox fees are no where near as high as Ohio sales tax.
Time Warner, the cable provider that is now my only option since moving to Avon, goes as far as to charge an extra fee for a remote control. F that. Im sure if they had real competition from other cable providers, UVerse, and FIOS, in addition to just the satellite companies, we wouldn't see crap like that.
Cox had a $5 franchise fee on my $40 bill 5 years ago.
all done now (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sirius-xm-merger-080729-ht,0,7818487.story)
So what's it mean to subscribers? Did our channels just double?
Tribune wire reports
11:02 AM CDT, July 29, 2008
XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio said Tuesday they have completed their long-pending merger.
The combined company plans to use the name Sirius XM Radio Inc. Its stock will continue to be traded on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol SIRI. They first announced their deal in March 2007.
all done now (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sirius-xm-merger-080729-ht,0,7818487.story)
So what's it mean to subscribers? Did our channels just double?
If you are willing to pay a few dollars more and your receiver is compatible with both systems...
http://xmradio.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1648 <= more in depth press release.
extramundane
07-30-08, 10:39 AM
all done now (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sirius-xm-merger-080729-ht,0,7818487.story)
So what's it mean to subscribers? Did our channels just double?
According to Mel Karmazin this morning, by September or October, existing subscribers should be able to start receiving content from the other service on their current radios (presumably for an added cost). No specifics were given about what content would be first, but it was implied that getting the Howard Stern channels and NFL on XM radios and MLB on Sirius radios were the priorities.
According to Mel Karmazin this morning, by September or October, existing subscribers should be able to start receiving content from the other service on their current radios (presumably for an added cost). No specifics were given about what content would be first, but it was implied that getting the Howard Stern channels and NFL on XM radios and MLB on Sirius radios were the priorities.
I thought the two transmission systems were incompatable? They must be planning to transmit the channels in both formats.
extramundane
07-30-08, 01:50 PM
They must be planning to transmit the channels in both formats.
That would be my guess. He later mentioned that the existing XM and Sirius infrastructures (satellites, ground repeaters, etc) would necessarily remain for several more years, so unless there's some magic firmware fix, a "simulcast" is the only thing I can think of that would work for existing equipment.
some, but not all sirius channels will be broadcast on XM, and vice versa.
there will be new plans and new radios which will allow you to receive all stations from both.
extramundane
10-01-08, 03:30 PM
As of today, "Best of the other service" packages are available for $4/month extra.
The "Best of XM" package (Oprah, NBA, NHL, PGA, College Sports and Opie & Anthony) is one of the least appealing "entertainment" packages I think I've ever seen. :\
Andrew Longman
10-01-08, 03:39 PM
As of today, "Best of the other service" packages are available for $4/month extra.
The "Best of XM" package (Oprah, NBA, NHL, PGA, College Sports and Opie & Anthony) is one of the least appealing "entertainment" packages I think I've ever seen. :\
They would have to pay me quite a lot to listen to that. How much, I'm not sure yet, but it would be about the same as if you wanted to borrow my spleen.
Howard Stern, NFL, Nascar, Playboy and Martha Stewart available on XM side.
Four bucks.
Andrew Longman
10-01-08, 03:42 PM
What package is XM packaging the IRL channel? :gomer:
They would have to pay me quite a lot to listen to that. How much, I'm not sure yet, but it would be about the same as if you wanted to borrow my spleen.I listen to O&A all the time.
I am not proud to say it, but I've never heard radio that could make me lol hard until O&A.
:\
They do the standard stupid stuff sometimes, but when they are on, they are ON.
What package is XM packaging the IRL channel? :gomer:
Yeah, xm screws us with NASCAR, Sirius should at least screw you with earl.
I listened to the earl once for about 1/2 hour. It was MUCH better than the TV announcers.
I know, you're all shocked to hear that.
They would have to pay me quite a lot to listen to that. How much, I'm not sure yet, but it would be about the same as if you wanted to borrow my spleen.
That can be arranged, you know.
1jDRqpTmWmo
:gomer:
-Kevin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.