Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Radio: Tune In or Turn Off?
Satellite radio has been a technology in the making for many years now. In 1992, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assigned part of the S-band (2.3 GHz) spectrum for nationwide broadcasting of a satellite-based Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS). In 1997, the FCC granted American Mobile Radio (now XM Satellite Radio) and CD Radio (now Sirius Satellite Radio) broadcast rights over that band. After several years of tinkering, courting investors and partners, and lining up their content these two companies are poised to finally make satellite radio a reality.
The Players
XM Satellite Radio (NASDQ: XMSR) and Sirius Satellite Radio (NASDQ: SIRI) paid an estimated $80 million each for their exclusive distribution rights to satellite radio. With numerous industry partners and investors these two companies are hoping to become the next giants of the media world.
Washington, D.C. based XM Radio launched nationwide service on November 12, 2001, after two months of regional service. XM Radio currently offers 100 channels (71 music and 29 news, sports, talk, and children's programming). XM Radio has exclusive content relationships with C/NET, NASCAR, and others. XM Radio's most notable auto industry partner is General Motors. Cadillac now offers XM Radio standard on all new 2002 Sevilles and Devilles. XM Radio's service is available for a monthly subscription fee of $9.99.
New York City based Sirius Radio plans to launch their service in Denver, Houston, and Phoenix on February 14, 2002. A Sirius Radio spokesperson told Saltire that their service will be available nationwide by the third-quarter of 2002. Sirius Radio also offers 100 channels (60 commercial-free music and 40 news, sports, talk, and entertainment programming). Sirius Radio has exclusive content relationships with NPR, Hispanic Radio Network, and National Lampoon. Sirius Radio also has exclusive partnerships with DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and BMW. Sirius Radio's service is available for a monthly subscription fee of $12.95.
Although XM Radio and Sirius Radio have their distinct differences there are however some things that that they both share in common. Both services offer similar music channel genres. The big difference being that all of Sirius Radio's music channels are commercial-free as opposed to only about 30 such channels on XM Radio. Both services also share several news and entertainment providers like Bloomberg, CNBC, CNN, ESPN, and the Weather Channel.
XM Radio and Sirius Radio have also partnered with many of the same manufacturing partners including Alpine, Clarion, Delphi Delco, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sony, and Visteon. One very exciting product is Sony's "Plug and Play" DRN-XM01 model that works in both your car and home stereo system through the use of a $150 adapter kit. The two companies have also teamed up with similar retailers to help distribute satellite radio receivers, antennas, and other devices. These retailers include Best Buy, Circuit City, Crutchfield, Good Guys, and Tweeter.
Just The Facts
According to the Radio Advertising Bureau, 75% of all Americans age 12 and up listen to radio daily, and 95% listen every week. But their choices are almost always very limited. Consider the fact that more than 22 million listeners receive fewer than five FM stations, and the communications industry firm Veronis, Suhler & Associates noted that 50% of all existing radio stations only use one of three programming formats (Adult Contemporary, Country, and News/Talk/Sports).
In many cases, huge segments of the music industry get little or no coverage by mainstream radio. One study indicated that up to 21% of annual music sales come from these totally ignored formats. This is especially true of ethnic music formats like African, Asian, Caribbean, or Hispanic. Combine this with the fact that more than 105 million listeners live outside the 50 largest radio markets and you quickly realize satellite radio's potential appeal.
Too Much Information
XM Radio uses two Boeing HS-702 satellites that are positioned over the East and West Coasts of the United States. The satellites, aptly named "Rock" and "Roll", maintain a geostationary orbit at 22,000 miles above the earth. XM Radio has a third back-up satellite on the ground should something go wrong in orbit.
Sirius Radio uses three Space Systems/Loral 1300 satellites in a high altitude elliptical orbit. Sirius Radio contends that this ensures that each satellite will spend about 16 hours a day over the U.S., and that at least one satellite is over the country at all times. Sirius Radio also has a back-up satellite standing by just in case of problems.
Both companies transmit their signal on the S-band, at 12.5 MHz to radio receivers on the ground. Sirius Radio will use the in the 2320.0 to 2332.5 MHz frequency band. XM Radio already uses the 2332.5 to 2345.0 MHz frequency band. They will also use repeaters in urban areas where buildings and other obstructions may interfere with signal reception.
One On One
Saltire interviewed Chance Patterson, XM Radio's Vice President of Corporate Affairs, to get his take on satellite radio.
- Saltire - What are some of the key differences between XM Radio and Sirius Radio?
CP - The biggest difference is that we have a fully developed and deployed system. We have a proven product that's great, and we developed the system with a retail focus, not just limited to the car. But we're not just an audio service. We've recruited the best people in the industry. These people really make our content come alive.Saltire - What will it take for XM Radio to succeed financially?
CP - We figure that we need 4.5 million subscribers to be profitable. There are more than 200 million registered vehicles in the United States. So we need less than 2.5% of all cars to reach that figure. And this doesn't take into account people who only use it in the home. We think the demand is definitely there.Saltire - How important is the auto industry to XM Radio's success?
CP - They are a part of it for sure. We have a full OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) system. We have partnered with GM, and they are also an investor. Right now Cadillac models already have the system. Over the next year more than 20 GM models will have factory-installed units.Saltire - What does satellite radio mean for listeners?
CP - People are spending more time in their cars and they want to be informed, and they want to enjoy that time a little more. XM can do that. If you're listening to the reggae channel you should feel like you're in Jamaica. It's really point-of-view radio.Saltire - What does satellite radio mean for traditional radio?
CP - XM doesn't disenfranchise AM/FM. Terrestrial radio will be forced to get better. Talk to the audience like they're older than 12 year olds. Talk to me about the music. Talk to me about the world when [the song] was written. That's what listeners really want.Saltire - But will people really pay for satellite radio?
CP - People said they'd never pay for cable television because TV was something they already got for free. Look at how that turned out. We're going to do the same thing for radio. The difference is that we already have all of the infrastructure. The one-millionth subscriber doesn't cost more than the first one. We'll offer better quality, less commercials, and more choice. We believe people will pay for their passions.
Word On The Street
Saltire solicited the unfettered opinions of individuals in the technology, radio, and automotive industry.
- What do you think satellite radio means for advertisers?
"I think it can potentially be very good for advertisers. Specifically, by dividing the content available into so many categories, advertisers can probably make better assumptions about demographics. For example, XM Radio offers a dedicated NASCAR channel, dedicated BlueGrass channel, etc. The targeting is more granular than conventional radio where most stations do a little of everything, music, news, weather, traffic, etc. This should translate to more effective advertising potential for advertisers. That said, some of us are and will be willing to pay for commercial free options - I sure am." - Jason Foodman, technologist and Vice President of Business Development, Aladdin SystemsWhy do you think satellite radio has the potential to be a big success?
"Abetted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that relaxed ownership restrictions and made possible the creation of media behemoths, conventional radio programmers unwittingly sabotaged their own stations through pernicious cost-saving programming trends such as corporate-level programming, format duplication and computer automation. The result: bland, boring, sound-alike radio stations from town to town, up and down the dial all across America, which drive away listeners in droves. That's good for satellite radio services like XM and, soon, Sirius, since listeners may eventually find their way to satellite radio." - Michael Saffran, radio industry veteran and Senior News Specialist, Rochester Institute of TechnologyWhat does the auto industry really think about satellite radio?
"Everybody in the automotive/telematics value chain is excited about it. Well, maybe not everybody, but I've just been doing some interviews on a satellite based telematics project, and everybody I've talked to at OEMs, Tier 1 suppliers, cellular carriers, really likes the idea of satellite radio. I get the feeling they want this to work, if only because it lets them get a foot in the car door with subscription-based services." - Thomas R. Elliott, Vice President of North American Consulting, Strategy Analytics, Inc.
The Bottom Line
Both XM Radio and Sirius Radio agree that the market is big enough for two players. But as both services ramp up they need to find a way to stay in business. XM Radio recently reported a third-quarter '01 net loss of $70.8 million. Sirius Radio reported a net loss of $57 million for the same time period. XM Radio just announced financing to operate its business into the fourth-quarter of 2002. Sirius Radio has also publicly announced that they have enough cash to last until the fourth-quarter of 2002.
To succeed both companies will need the support of the auto industry, and quickly. Getting satellite radios installed as standard equipment will help to build their subscriber base. The current $300 to $400 conversion cost might be a bit too steep for most consumers. Also, current receivers only support a single format (XM or Sirius). Future AM/FM/XM/SR models should also help boost more widespread usage.
Finally, there is enough content overlap to keep subscribers to either service happy. Perhaps the biggest decision is whether or not you want ads with your music. Sirius Radio's commercial-free music service can be yours for just $3 more each month than what XM Radio charges. The immense variety of music and other content should be a big hit if consumers can just find an easy way to get their hands on the technology. And reports of its CD-quality audio can only help to increase satellite radio's popularity. I'm still waiting to hear it for myself. Stay tuned.
i live in a very remote area of western new mexico. the only local radio is in navajo. you can get one or two bubble gum stations from gallup. before primestar, i had to listen to the bbc on s/w for news.
i'm ready.
Commercial radio sucks big time.
pronoblem
Five years ago, this would have been the coolest thing in the world. Imagine being able to commute in the morning an listen to music instead of a pair of DJs chatting. Sure, you could pop in a tape or CD, but that can be a pain.
Now, it's not quite so interesting. The early adopters have been, at least in part, co-opted by car MP3 players. If I had a long commute, you can bet that's the direction I would invest my car audio dollars.
Of course, there is still a significant market for them, but it's just a little harder to get people excited about it than it would have been a few years ago.
In many cases, huge segments of the music industry get little or no coverage by mainstream radio.
Lucky them!
Seriously, if this technology is just an overglorified radio, what is the benifit? If they provide radio stations with content the people want to hear (like non-mainstream music in all genres) then you might have a winner.
Of course if this frequency is ideal for wireless satellite broadband internet access then get the radio off it immediately! You can stream the radio over the net if you have to.
If you liked WHFS back in the day, one of their former dj's now works for XM.
XM handles signal fade in cities by putting repeaters up all over the place.
Best Slashdot Co
Of the same music! Damn, America has two types of music - Country and Western!
For this reason, I'm guessing that satellite radio receivers would be a big hit in Ryder/UHaul trucks. It would also keep them from having to reprogram the radio settings at every location.
Hate trolls? Troll 'em back...at home!
I live in a high rise. My windows are on the North, and in every other direction, including straight up, there's a lot of steel.
Would I be able to receive XM signals? I can't get satellite TV, obviously.
I love radio, and would buy XM in an instant if I knew it would work. But I haven't seen very much information on reception. Most of their marketing and FAQs seem to be aimed at people in cars and trucks. I like to drive as much as the next guy (more, probably), but I'm just not on the road that often.
With in-car MP3,
I would extend that thought to include wireless access to IP, and therefore eventual ability to have nonstop streaming of any mulitmedia content on the web coming from your car's dashboard.
When you can instantly access any song ever recorded, why would you still pay to subscribe to a service that only gives 100 streams where someone else is picking the songs?
Of course it will be long time before that is a realistic option in places like Montana. So for those areas, MP3 is a great option if you don't mind doing the downloads yourself, otherwise it might be worth $10/month to have someone else choosing your playlist for you.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I would love this if they were broadcasting in digital radio. It would be cool to be able to have song titles listed, have the quality of digital, be able to search for a particular type of music or song being played, etc. If it is just analog then I'm not so sure if it will take off.
Sapere aude!
So car manufacturers want to adopt practices of other industries? I find it hard to believe that there's a great consumer need out there for car-delievered subscription services, since the vast majority of car owners spend such a limited (if regular) time in their cars that it doesn't offer the value DirecTV/cable/DSL/etc offer.
Further, the car's considered a big, expensive appliance, like a washing machine -- customers aren't going to spend extra monthly over the life of the car for something like leather seats. I think the potential market the car makers are trying to tap into is extremely limited, but look towards their attempts with fear.
-- q
I will not pay $10 a month for the 'right' to listen to more commercials. I pay $40 a month for internet, and get spammed from them. I pay $80 a month for Directv, and get more "special offer" channels instead of more movies in DD5.1 GM's OnStar deal, more cost the car, and when your 'free trial' runs out, there's another monthly fee, otherwise, you paid for some electronic gizmo in your new GM car that won't work in 5 years, and another route for more spam, crammed down our throats, on systems that WE are paying for.
And don't give me that garbage about "your monthly fee only covers infrastructure costs, someone needs to pay for content." I don't buy that for a second, if I pay for a service, don't cram ads down to consumers. That's why I am using a pay service to begin with.
This doesn't offer me anything that I don't get with free FM (which is financed by commercials, fair tradeoff). CD quality? Big deal, I can throw an mp3 player in my car for cheap these days.
They will fail and blame "poor market conditions" or have some other excuse for not making money. Funny how noone says "We didn't use common sense" as an excuse.
Can we finally rid the world of the middleman now? We have:
Someone please stop the RIAA before they ask their cronies (the gummint) to pass laws making it illegal to hum tunes to ourselves?
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
I see the greatest appeal in satellite radio in talk radio/news/sports, live content that you wouldn't be able to get(or at least reliably or from a consistent source) if you're on the road.
Plus, like with satellite TV, it could help you get shows from other parts of the country you'd otherwise be unable to get.
Plus, not everyone has the time or inclination to upload their music collections to mp3.
They compare themselfd to pay tv.
I think most people enjoy watching tv more then litening to the radio. How many people want to get together and listen to the big game? ~0.
Most people are in there cars for less then 2 hours a day, almost all of them neve leave there radio area. Contray to what he says, Most dense population have a wide variety of radio programming.
The only potential market I see is truckers.
I do have an idea that would make this successful, I just don't know if it would be acceptable under current regulations.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
For me, one of the joys of long car trips -- like DC to Boston, or DC to Denver -- is scanning for interesting local radio. Especially weird local talk radio. Same sattelite radio stations, coast to coast? Boring! No sattelite radio for me!
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
Nope - from XM's customer agreement:
That's $30 a month - no way in the world am I paying that - sorry.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Do the same FCC decency rules & regulations apply for satellite transmissions as they do for AM/FM? It would be sweet to listen to uncensored talk radio (imagine what Opie & Anthony could do on the air....). I think that would be the killer app for satellite radio.
In retrospect, XM should have really considered a smartcard system like that of DirecTV. Those are crackable but they are a lot more difficult. Putting the authenticator on a damn EEPROM chip was just a stupid move, and it is certain to result in large-scale piracy.
~wally
On a technical note, does anyone know the capacity of these systems in terms of the number of seperate channels they can offer?
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
I have an hour commute every day. Combined with the occasional roadtrip, and I like having XM. When you add in the total suckiness of radio here in Kansas City, where we have one "All Pink Floyd, All The Time" station, one "Classic Rock" station and a whole crapload of Britney stations, some "Easy Listening" stations. No alternative. Not even any modern rock. They all suck.
I've got the pioneer equipment. It works well, it doesn't cut out, it sounds great. There are lots of stations with lots of different kinds of music.
I got it installed right before an 18 hour road trip. There's nothing like having music piped in for 9 hours at a stretch with no commercials and not having to change stations because "Another Brick in the Wall" came on AGAIN.
(Pink Floyd put out 20+ albums, why do radio stations insist on playing The Wall over and over and over again?)
The installation is painless, very similar to installing a remote CD Changer in your car.
Things I wish they had: Some kind of smart-card-ish way to bring a receiver into my house that doesn't cost as much as Sony's solution.
I'm very happy with the system right now.
-rs
I spend roughly 1 and a half hours in the car each day. Listening to a single set of mp3s, even a large one, can get tedious.
Then there is talk radio, which I imagine is going to be a large application of this thing. 24 hour Rush Limbaugh Marathons(...what joy...), still I imagined listened too. More selection, less trouble dealing with media/mp3's. Station not playing what you like, pick another. Then there is news, traffic reports(I don't know about localization, but I imagine it's possible), weather, and such - which just can't be taken with you.
Anyway, just because you don't see applications, doesn't mean that noone is going to buy it. Remember, people still listen to radio, not just CD's.
------ 24.5% slashdot pure
I completely agree. I can't see myself investing in an XR or SR tuner when I have already put money into my car mp3 player. Especially when my car Mp3 player can do so much more than either of them can... such as playing pirated audiobooks. In my experience no long comute is complete without an audiobook to take you along on your journey.
Plus my mp3 collection has gotten larger than most radio station archieve's... so I'm not exactly hurting for new musical content.
The killer app of satalite is more apt to be something we can't already get. Such as Howard Stern live (or delayed for the west coast). You can grab it off the newsgroups a day late... but it's not the same thing as listening to it live. And considering how limited his and other radio personalities' markets are, satalite could bring them into alot more homes/cars.
I've been doing alot of traveling in new england lately, and haven't been able to hear howard since I left NYC. I would be more than happy to pay $10-20/mo to get Howard and other original content anywhere I go. But not just for music... you can find music everywhere you go in North America already.
I don't recall the format though. But it does have the option of listing the titles. Haven't heard about searching, but the stations will be divided by genre.
Best Slashdot Co
Sure this is great technology and all, but why should I be forced to pay $10/month for music I can get for free on regular radio? Sure it's not digital quality, but for the most part it's good enough. Plus, this new "digital satellite radio" can't be as robust as regular analog radio. What's going to happen everytime you go under a cement overpass or are sitting in a parking garage? Is my new fabulous digital solution going to "skip" 50 times on my average daily commute? Sorry, digital quality audio just isn't worth it if this is the case.
What's more, when I decide I want a song in digital quality, that's what I have my car minidisc deck for. I have an optical connection from my computer to my standalone minidisc recorder, and I record digital music (usually MP3s) to my heart's content, and take the minidisc into my car. Even in mono (~150min) it sounds absolutely perfect on my car stereo (6 speakers, 1 sub).
If they made a flavor of Satellite Radio with commercials that was FREE, then I might consider getting a satellite receiver. Until that time, I can't imagine getting one. In fact, when I hear my friends talking about getting a satellite radio, I chime in "Are you really going to pay $10 per month for radio?" and they immediately respond, "They charge a monthly fee??" It'll be interesting to see how much of the wow factor will wear off when people go to their car audio shop and find out there's a monthly fee for a car stereo.
I only see two ways for this to really take off. One option would be to add an extra $250 or $500 to each new vehicle pricetag, to act as a sort of "down payment" on the satellite radio service. That way, at least you get two years (or four) of the service "for free" with your vehicle purchase, and after that time you can decide if you want to stick with it or not. The only other option I see, is to stick some commercials in the service, and offer a free alternative. Put ads on the LCD, regular audio commercials, whatever is necessary... but I can guarantee you this, I would never, ever, pick up one of these stereos if I knew I would have to pay $10/month indefinitely just to USE that incredibly expensive receiver I bought. No way.
Seriously, the point of the radio is to get exposed to new music. Call me a teenie-bopper, but I have discovered shit that I like by listening to the radio.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
I hate to brag but we've had Digital radio in the Uk for a while now..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/
Of course we have slightly less red tape to go through, but it's interesting wrt to broadcast/cellphones how you guys in the US seem to lagging behind other countries. I guess making the frequencies available is the main problem??
I've heard about satellite radio on and off for at least five years now, but there was no "hype" (directed towards MY demographic at least :-\ ). IMHO, satellite radio is great for people in out of the way places or who are on the move all the time, but is this a large enough market to justify the amount of money it takes to pay for upkeep?
crazy dynamite monkey
I honestly believe that people will pay for such a convienence.
I personally would love to have music playing that doesn't cut in and out while I'm driving a long distance. Or trying to find a good radio station that doesn't play country way up in northern vermont or maine.
And no advertisements! yes, yes, yes!
But the real question is this: "Will the satelite radio compainies get enough subscribers to sustain themselves"
This is very important and should really be looked into first. I mean, so many wireless internet companies failed. We just saw @thome go under just recently, and they had a LARGE customer base.
Regretfully, very few companies could pull this off. And I firmly believe that the only ones who will, are the ones that are already established such as Time-Warner or Microsoft. They already have the capital and the means and they can suffer the losses that will incur for the early years of this new business cycle. Not some startup.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
So if they have to put two more satellites up, will they be named Sex and Drugs?
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Few, if any, radio stations on that stretch of I-15. Ditto for the Vegas to LA run. Good stations in Vegas, but once you are over the ridges there's little or nothing.
Best Slashdot Co
I would rather that 3Com bring back the Kerbango I wanted for months and months (I pre-ordered it from Amazon as soon as it was announced) and it was canned before it was released -- a victim of 3Com's Internet Appliance division. With CDs, car MP3 players (such as a 1,000 song iPod) and 5 AM talk radio stations, who needs Satellite Radio? I would have loved to have the 1,000s of channels of Internet radio from a Kerbango sitting on my desk instead.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
What I would pay for in my car is 100% reliable, commercial-free newscasts from BBC, NPR, and CBS News. Just the news, not the music. Someone make that happen for a lower price, and I'm there.
sulli
RTFJ.
"And now here is the latest from RAGE AGAINST THE KORN BIZKIT!" ;)
Long-haul truckers are probably a solid market, but I don't know how many of them there are or if they'd make a big difference in the bottom line.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I had XM radio, I took it back. Simply put the quality was about the same as 96Kbit Mp3. It had great selection the music was awesome. The no commercials ruled. But everytime a song I liked came on and I cranked it up, the lack of quality and compression artifacts drove me away.
Also, do you think this will appeal to the soccer moms of america? or the older population? Too technical maybe or just not worth it?
He said "are more than 200 million registered vehicles in the United States" but to reach their number they still need 4.5 million of those? Are there 4.5 million people ready to chuck out $10/month with the uncertainty of the economy?
I hope they do well, but I personally think they're about a year too late. A year ago, everyone wanted a new gadget, now, I don't think thats the case...
I have satalite tv, and I live in Portland. OR. where its cloudy most of the year, and I don't have a problem.
If wheather was really a problem do you think there would even be satalite tv?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Note too that until the advent of cable TV, "the whole world" (except Britain) had "NEVER paid for TV". Cable changed that.
Given a choice between indirectly and directly funded radio I can't say I know whether enough consumers would choose the latter, especially if it requires special equipment. But given time, and given radios that have the additional functionality built in, that may be a matter of time.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Now if someone could just get my trash bin to the street on Wednesday mornings without my involvement...that would be weinning technology.
That's already offered: Maid Service. Subscription based. And not only will it get your trash can out to the street, it'll pick the trash that isn't even IN your trash can and get it to the street!
Karma: NaN
I agree with you whole-heartedly. Just wish to further what you said.
;)
Advice about the mp3 thing, get a bigger collection
But seriously, just so long as we can maintain regional advertising or local stations, I'll be happy. Last thing I want to hear is an MS Commercial or a McDonald's Commercial in NYC. If there's a special event in the area, I'd like to hear about it as well.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
When you can instantly access any song ever recorded, why would you still pay to subscribe to a service that only gives 100 streams where someone else is picking the songs?
Of course. The thing is, you may have access to every song ever recorded, but you don't know which ones you like, which you enjoy, and which aren't worth your bandwidth. That's what radio is for. MP3 won't supercede radio, because they're completely different media.
Alternative (right): whine whine whine, teeny-bop pop.
Hip Hop : crooooayayanouuuuoo-ning garbage or the same beat with lyrics about 'tha street'.
Classic Rock : good songs that I have heard 1 million times. Hey, even Zeppelin gets old.
Light Rock : What the hell is this!?
Obviously, we aren't intelligent enough to listen to our own music in this country. We have to listen to what they cram down our throats. Maybe it is that way in other countries too, but at least it would be new (to us) music if we could listen to it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Why I will not be listening to satellite radio anytime soon:
- It's a subscription model, and yet I have to buy the equipment which is not cheap (other than the one car manufacturer that includes it).
- It's a subscription model, yet there are commercials (on at least some channels)
- I have to dish out money for equipment and yet there is a good chance it will only work for less than a year. One company admitted that they have money to stay afloat until the end of next year. Which means, there is a good chance they will no longer exist a year from now since I think they're expectations on signing up 4.5 million subscribers is a bit optimistic.
Yikes. No thanks. You won't get me to take the gamble, at least not until they have been around for a couple years. Of course, if everybody thinks like me, they won't be around for a couple of years.
Okay, it sounds like you know what you're talking about with regards to this subject, but please:
What the hell did you just say?
This isn't a troll; I'd honestly like to gain a little insight into... whatever it is you wrote about.
Cheers,
levine
headed for the same landfill that Iridium and Ricochet
Iridium is not dead. The DOD has a $70 million contract with the small Canadian firm that purchased the scraps after their bankrupcy. Buy a $1000 Motorola 9505 phone and each minute is now $1.50 form anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world. It use to cost ~$10 a minute. The DOD contract let them make a profit - so they sould be around for a while.
I use mine in Europe and Japan - it's cheaper than GSM roaming, and the incomming caller pays the $1.50, not me. It's also great for backbacking - I can pretend that I'm still at the server farm on Fridays.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I think an important market for satellite radio will be immigrants to the US. just as an example, is there a good Chinese, Russian, Hindi, or Portuguese language broadcast station in your area? Probably not. Are there a lot of people in the US who speak these languages as their mother tongue? Sure. I bet plenty of these people would appreciate being able to pick up syndicated news/talk/music from home.
Just capturing part of that market will set set satellite radio well on its way to the customer volume it needs for viability. These may seem like niche markets, but the cost to provide services like these should be low. The volume will make the receivers cheap, then the market will grow.
Sig?
Sigue Sigue Sputnik!!!
What about me? The sports junkie? I could listen to sports events/talk the entire time I'm in the car. My commute lasts about an hour each way so I love listening to the sports channels. The only problem is there's only one FM sports talk show on and they dont have live coverage. I need to switch to AM for that. All though many on /. would like to think that the world is filled with others like them, the fact is everyone on here is most likely the minority. Some, myself included, would spend $10 /month getting live coverage of sports/news events.
1) It would require something different from regular radio. I'd like to be able to listen to all-reggae, or all-cuban -- don't replicate the crap that already smothers the radio dial
2) No commercials -- if I'm paying for a monthly service, i don't want to hear any ads. (this alone would make it worth a monthly fee)
3) A low monthly fee. I currently pay about $5-10 a month already to a local community-funded radio station (http://www.wpkn.org -- check it out, they kick ass). I wouldn't pay more than $10 a month, and honestly $7.50 seems a fair price.
4) Cheap/free hardware -- noone is going to pay a lot of money for hardware that may very well be obsolete in 6 months to a year.
Needs 3 and 4 are the toughest ones to meet, I think. Especially when following 2. I'd love to see someone pull it off, though, and I'd definitely have one installed in my car.
I have lost satelite TV signals 3 times in the past 4 years that I have had it. Twice it was due to a huge amount of snow on the dish, and the third time was actually due to weather. Weather inteference shouldn't be a huge factor, and ground based repeators are being installed to also ensure manmade obstructions don't cause a problem.
I'm becoming progressively disturbed at the number of companies trying to get into your pocket every month. Fair-use as we know it for almost any device seems to be going away, and NONE of it is customer-driven. Look at the trends.
Soon, you will pay monthly for your software (Microsoft - others will follow suit), radio (XM/Sirius), music (online music services that give you access to large song catalogs but remove all access to music when you cancel), movies (divx tried to start it, big $$$ is picking up the idea now), books (M$ vision for e-books w/ DRM), video games (Final Fantasy XI), web sites....
What was wrong with existing revenue models? Just because companies like Microsoft were incapable of creating software worth the cost of updating, it screwed up their revenue predictions.... Why should consumers get screwed just so a company can predict their profits more accurately? Why can't I just buy something and own it anymore? I can't tell you how much this pisses me off.
What's the common thread here? Huge footholds in the industry or sanctioned monopolies (MPAA, RIAA, M$, XM/Sirius). Preach all you want about speaking with your dollars, but that only works while you still have a choice. What happens when we don't have access to the alternatives any more because of coersion of distribution channels, anti-competitive practices, and purchased legislation?
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
So people in Britain did, indeed, pay for radio directly rather than indirectly through higher priced groceries, etc.
And the people in Britian have never been very happy paying either. It was a tax, you had to pay it (or prove you didn't own a radio, or TV now).
Now, I won't go into an arguement about the quality of Auntie Beeb's programming (I think its top notch, sans maybe the Archers) and if they cut the free web broadcasts would probably pay for thier service, but that's a different story.
People in Britain pay for broadcasts (be it radio or TV) because they have to by law (call it what you want, it is essentially a tax).
I could never find the time to find and listen to new music, manage a playlist and load all the current songs into my MP3 players even if I had the inclination to do so. That must take hours every day. I'd be very happy to pay $10 a month for someone else to do that for me. Plus all the news, traffic info and different talk shows.
My only concern is whether they actually produce good channels. I have satellite TV with 30 chanels of non stop "radio" music, but they are pretty lame. It's all in the execution.
It isn't a tax. Taxation raises money for government.
And the onus has always been on the collector to prove you have the necessary equipment. Britain has the usual laws of "innocence presumed until proven guilty", and they apply here too.
No, people in Britain paid for radio broadcasts because they wanted to receive them. If you didn't want to receive radio, you didn't have to pay a penny. Which brings us back to the original point.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There are people (like me) who like to listen to something that they did not know before, like new artist that I never heard of (so it is not in my MP3 collection), or an interesting opinion on NPR, so on. MP3 is just static set of data, you will never get anything new there. MP3 will never completely replace radio, it will only replace your CD-player.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
I'd have to agree with the sentiment posted earlier that, given the existence of large capacity MP3 players, the XM radio is merely great technology without a practical use just yet.
Let's examine the details:
1)Price
XM - $150 installation min. + $10/month
NOMAD 20GB - $300, car adapters maybe $40 on top max
So if you use it for 2 years the NOMAD is already better financially.
2)Content
XM - 100 commercial free channels and news
NOMAD - Anything you want
The only disadvantage of the nomad is the lack of news, but being able to load it with your very favorite songs and customize playlists, or have random playback, etc. makes it a winner when you consider that news is something you can get on a standard FM or even AM radio.
3) Ease of use
XM - Nothing required
NOMAD - if you get a car adapter then nothing required, else must monitor batteries. But car adapter mentioned in price above
So XM wins by a hair here..
4) Reliability
XM - Normal satellite transmission is easily disrupted by bad weather.. I would not be surprised if it wer the case here
NOMAD - Quite reliable but maybe slighly more risk of mechanical failure.
It's a tie here.....
For me, the ability to customize content makes a hard drive mp3 player a "killer app".. I currently have the smaller nomad and it has become my best friend.
That doesn't stop me from wanting satellite tv over cable though.. the picture is soooooo beautiful!
It isn't a tax. Taxation raises money for government.
My point was that while it isn't a tax in name, it is essentially a tax. If you own a TV, you have to pay it. You cannot claim "Hey, I just watch ITV" and get out of paying. Thus, I find it more akin to a property tax than simply a subscription fee.
No, people in Britain paid for radio broadcasts because they wanted to receive them. If you didn't want to receive radio, you didn't have to pay a penny. Which brings us back to the original point.
Again, not quite. My understanding is the money you pay goes to the BBC, which is a gov't entity. (I honestly don't know if any TV licence goes to ITV or not). It is not analagous to Cable. If I don't want to watch cable, I do not pay cable rates, I don't get access to cable programming. On the other hand even if I do not want to watch the BBC by simply owning a TV I still have to pay the TV licence.
Again, this is more akin to a property tax than a subscription service.
I bought XM Radio and put it in my car last month on a trip across the southern US. After driving from Yuma to Tucson with no decent radio reception, I broke down (not literally) and got it installed at Circuit City in Tucson. I then jumped back in the car and drove home to Florida. Not once did I lose the reception and I was driving through mountains, storms (remember last month's huge Texas thunderstorms?), and large cities (Houston, etc). I also livein Florida and it rains here often and I have yet to lose the signal. For those who don't know, the signal is also buffered by several seconds which keeps it from dropping out. It works great. The music selection is great. I can tell very few people here have actually researched the music offerings. The stations with commercials keep them short and under two minutes and you're back to the tunes. It beats the ten minute traffic updates, announcements, and lame car commercials on regular radio. They have independent stations in addition to regular stuff and have three great comedy stations. All the stations are also uncensored for those of you who like that sort of thing. Considering many of you don't hesitate to drop hundreds of dollars into computer and stereo equipment, I'm surprised you are complaining. Ten bucks a month is paltry compared to what you get with this. I got the Sony portable and you can listen to it at home after work. It is the best. Bob
I'm not really interested in satellite radio because I'm 99.99% sure I won't find anything I want to listen to. Yeah, this sh*t is nation wide, but who wants that? From my experience, anything nation wide isn't interesting because the presentation is ultra-bland, assumably so nobody is offended. I hear nation wide style broadcasts on my local radio stations mostly on the weekend, which is filler content the station uses to fill the void. "Your listening to the we're going to tell you whats cool this week show, and I'm your host, ultra fake ultra boring radio guy!"
I believe that localized (or regional) traditional FM radio is more interesting to listen to because of its local identity. The DJs are people that are part of the localized culture, we can easily identify with those people, and the presentation is interesting. People identify with their favorite radio stations... its one way we can identify "who we are" in a social context. I certainly would have a hard time identifying with a bland nation-wide pop-culture type of satellite radio "station".
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
This is why you can turn on the radio in LA on a Sunday night and hear the same idiot DJ on three stations at once, even though his show only loosely fits the format of two of those three -- because Clear Channel would rather pay only one DJ than three. Or why you have stupid radio contests where you now compete against callers across the entire country instead of in your own market. Or why 20-30 stations in a region have not only the same format, but the EXACT SAME playlist every week.
Throw in the thinly veiled payola that is the current record promotion business, and you end up with a very smoothly running machine that operates only for itself and the interests of its owners -- listeners and music enthusiasts be damned. If you're an artist that doesn't have a big label behind you that believes you'd be profitable to them (because there are artists on big labels who get no support from their label -- who might as well just be on a no-name independent label in Des Moines), you're screwed. You may get college radio play, but that's not going to take you very far.
I read recently that Clear Channel is one of the partners of one of these companies -- not sure whether it's XM or Sirius. If this is really the case, this shit is doomed. I have a hard time believing the public is going to PAY for the same bland, homogenized garbage that they already get for free in the 90-something percent of America that is covered by a Clear Channel station already.
Having been a college and community radio DJ in the past, and remembering the days when a fair amount of commercial stations were even pretty good at times, this is really depressing to me. The idea that a wonderful new technology will probably end up being manipulated by the same uncultured, money-obsessed marketroids and milked for every last penny it can spit out, until it ultimately dies, is just plain sad.
So, you want to survive, Sirius and XM? Don't suck.
--- Why yes, I am the webmaster of Microsuck.com
Broadcast stations are getting bought up left and right, largely by beheamoths like Clear Channel and Capital Cities/ABC (Disney). In the markets I live in, Minneapolis (school year), and Grand Forks (summer), the airwaves are dominated by CRAP, a large portion of which is broadcast by a Clear Channel station (5 in Grand Forks, 7 in Minneapolis). The music choice on these stations seems to be limited to oldies, Britney Spears, and Limp Bizkit. The only alternatives in either market are college radio -- REV 105 used to be a real choice in Minneapolis, but that has been long swallowed up by Disney.
So I'm happy just to see satellite radio for the opportunity for something that's just a little different (granted, there will be Clear Channel and Disney stations on there too).
So maybe we need to start a "pirate radio" station for satellite, or at least get a good net-only station onto satellite.
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
The FCC a few years back decided to allow micropower stations. Congress, backed by the NAB (National Association of Broadcaster), passed legislation overriding the FCC. Essentially, Congress decided that the FCC - the US government entity in charge of communications - was not actually in charge. That legislation just about killed any chance of any real competition.
The truth is that the NAB is a cartel, just like OPEC. Unless you buy an existing station, in any suburban or metro area, you CANNOT get a frequency. The NAB has spectrum, and won't let anyone else get spectrum. They employ any means they can. They fought low power FM and won because they didn't want to lose listeners, didn't want advertisers getting cheaper advertising on small, low budget stations, and wanted to maintain their monopoly.
Why am I irritated, and why should you be too? Well, there are only a few major companies which own most of the radio stations you hear. That classic rock station you like? Owned by Infinity Broadcasting - CBS. That hip hop station? ABC. They playlists you hear are put together by the corporations. The 1996 Telecom act allows a company to own up to 33% of the stations in a market (up from 25% prior). That means, theoretically, 3 companies can own all the AM/FM spectrum in the US. It also means that if those 3 companies don't like something, you may never hear it. XM/Sirius radio means there are only 2 players. If only one survives, there will be only 1 company deciding the music and playlists you listen to. Do you like "Noise in the Basement" - those late night local music shows on your local rock station? You'll never experience anything like that again.
Commercial radio has become just that - commercial. Generic, regurgitated, formulaic "music". Rock was great in the 50's and 60's. The Beatles were pop music. POP MUSIC! Think about today's pop music and you fully understand what I'm saying. Incidentally, my music colletion spans 1920 to the present, 150 CDs, 160 albums, and about 20 gigs of MP3s.
I personally wouldn't use satellite radio if the equipment and service was FREE and there weren't any commercials, simply because I hate knowing one company decides the musical tastes of the entire country. Think about it in different terms if you prefer - Don't like Microsoft, but use their software at home or work because you don't have a choice (incompatibility/available applications/etc)? Think this will be any different with only one company controlling the spectrum on your equipment?
Wouldn't that be neat. Since it is already digital from the sat, no need to redigitize it...
:-)
You could fast forward commericials (assuming you have a buffer...) and pause a good song when you get out to pump gas.
Might be a bit dangerous to use while driving.
Later,
Affe
What does this mean for local advertising that dominates traditional FM radio? Lets say "Larry's Local Lobster Shack" advertises on the radio and generates a lot of business. There really isn't anything attractive about satellite radio advertising for local business owners to get excited about. Plus, its probably a lot more expensive to match the likes of the larger national companies.
I'm sure FM radio isn't going anyway, but will FM become to XM what AM is to FM?
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Shoutcast is MP3, and it offers the same sort of exposure.
But I agree with your main point, that it's important to listen to music that isn't all of your own personal choosing. I'm happy to let someone that has more time to sample everything that is available suggest what I listen to sometimes.
I think the major difference in my personal little world is that I feel I *NEED* TV, but I definitely don't fell like i *NEED* radio. There are certainly plenty of people out there who won't agree with me on that statement, but I'm willing to bet that there are a whole lot more who would agree with me. I like TV at home to be entertained (via mindless drivel) and informed (via CNN, Learning Channel, etc.). The only time I ever listen to radio is in the car, and if I had to pay for it, I'd just pop in a CD and leave the radio off. I really wouldn't feel like I was missing anything.
I love to listen to C-SPAN and NPR.
XM has C-SPAN.
Sirius has NPR.
Neither has both.
And I'm sure that's just the beginning.
So would I have to get both to get the content I want? Is it even possible to use one receiver for both? If not, then what if a third network starts up with content I want, instead? A fourth? A fifth?
That's why cable TV is such a big failure. Because we have to pay extra AND still see commercials.
Best Slashdot Co
The middle mind speaks!
I want satelite radio for sports. I like sports. Especially the Green Bay Packers. I live in Charlotte, NC. It's awfully difficult to listen to the packers in NC, unless of course they happen to be playing in NC, and then I just go the game. About the only thing that satelite radio provides me that I want is access to my favorite sports broadcasts no matter where I am in the country. That is, by far, the biggest selling point to me.
But I'm not going to get it. I am just not going to pay anything per month for this. There is no way that they're going to remove commercials from sports broadcasts. So I'm going to be paying someone to advertise to me? I think not. But even more important than that is the idea of the incremental infrastructure costs.
The reason that I pay for cable service to my house is because it actually costs the cable company extra money to run the cable to my house, and to continually maintain it. I pay for internet service because in order for me to get that service, I have to pay the additional infrastructure that allows me to connect to it (modems, bandwidth). So the more subscribers that a cable company or an ISP has, the more infrastructure that company requires. Thus there is an incremental cost associated with each additional customer that they have.
But this is not the case for broadcast providers. If 10 people listen to a broadcast or 1000 people listen to a broadcast, it costs the same amount for the broadcaster. Basic calculus: as the number of listeners approaches infinity, the cost per listener approaches 0. (Yes, yes, I know the number of listeners is finite.) Or put another way the incremental cost per listener is nothing.
So with no incremental cost per listener, the value of the service comes from getting lots and lots of listeners. In the cable and ISP world, lots of subscribers are good, but they also impose an additional cost per subscriber. But in the broadcast world, once you've put up the basic infrastructure, you want as many people to get that service as possible. Your costs are finished, so remove as many barriers as possible. Why? So that you can then turn around and tell advertisers that they can reach 275 million people (i.e. the entire US) with your service. If you put up barriers to entry for your listeners, you weaken the value of your advertising real estate. Why do the TV networks love the superbowl so much? Because 1 billion viewers is *very* expensive advertising real estate. TV networks make a killing on the superbowl. Advertising real estate is seriously valuable stuff.
Satelite radio and TV have such an oppurtunity to have the highest priced advertising space in the world. But they're squandering that oppurtunity by charging listeners/veiwers for their service. And why do they do that? Because their investors are simply not patient enough to be able to wait for returns on their investment. The cost of putting up satelites for these services is very high. But even so, it's a fixed, one time cost. What you want is to put that against ongoing, and increasing income. One strategy is to charge $x per month to the listeners. But this is short sighted. It does provide ongoing income, but it's hard to increase it without losing sources of that income (i.e. every time you increase the cost, you lose some customers).
The other option is to give the service away to listeners/viewers, and then charge advertisers for access. As the numbers of listeners/viewers increases, your advertising rates can also increase. So fixed cost, balanced by ongoing, and increasing income.
The problem, of course, is that the investors can't wait long enough for the satelite companies to build up their viewers. They want their returns and they want them as soon as possible. What they fail to see is that the demand for that immediate return is resulting in building businesses for which people will not subscribe. And, as a previous poster mentioned, when these companies fail, they certainly won't say it's because we had a bad plan.
Too bad. It's a good idea, ruined by impatience.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Clear Channel Communications has nothing to do with any of the programming choices.
In the last three years I have moved from North Carolina to Texas, California, and finally Minnesota.
CCC has done more to ruin Classic Rock stations (shock jocks, et al...), that I would consider $10/mo cheap if the playlists are good.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
However, I'm not sure whether I'd pay for commercial radio, it would absolutely have to be a cut above the rest and carry no adverts or sponsorship (like the BBC). I heard XM is only using 64kbps datarates for its stereo service, I wouldn't fancy that. I know one company in the UK is having problems trying to persuade people to subscribe to Digital Terrestrial TV, but that's mainly because the SkyDigital people have wiped the floor with them.
The trick is that he is paying for CNN, A&E, etc. Would your father still pay if he only got the local over the air stations?
I know I wouldn't, and I (shamefully:) admit to watching a hell of a lot of tv. But about 50% of it is NOT on ABC, CBS, etc, etc. It's on Discovery, Nick at Nite, Sci-Fi, etc.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
100 channels of N'Britney Boys? Or one stream of pap, a stream of reggae, a stream of Goth, one of Industrial, another for 80s new wave, the Disco channel, the Gangsta Rap channel, etc?
What'd make this TRULY cool is to allocate 1/10 of same streams to the best of public access.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Sure, the technology's cool. But the way Uncle (Frank Charlie) Charlie licensed it is indicative of everything that's wrong with modern American media.
With broadcast radio, in urban areas at least, there used to be a lot of broadcasters. Now they're allowed to consolidate so Clear Channel and Viacom own most of the stations. College radio and a handful of local holdouts are what remains of diversity.
With satellite radio, they cut right to the chase. Two licenses, nationwide, high capital corporate players. No other diversity. Sure, those players can select their providers from a diverse supply, if they so choose. But only if the dollars say so. No equivalent of Cable Leased Access, which theoretically allows anybody to buy a slot on a cable network, or for that matter cable's Public Access. Just 100 channels of what your Providers wants. Big Brother Knows Best. In the olden days, if there were a "natural monopoly" of this sort (if, for techical reasons, there could only be one or two providers, each with many channels, which seems to be the case here), then there might be the common carrier obligation or more open third-party-programming rules. But that's not what the content monopolists want.
Worse, the two systems are not interoperable. So you can't even pick one. You get either Sirius or XM, depending on which car (or aftermarket radio) you buy. So the duopoly is really a monopoly so far as listeners are concerned -- at least with broadcast radio, you get your choice of Viacom or Clear Channel pablum. And that interesting stuff down at the low end of the dial.
This is the DMCA's companion, a broadcast model from hell.
I've got one now, and have noticed a few things.
1) The sound quality isn't quite what I thought it would be. While I don't know the actual bitrates used, the music channels sound about like a 64k MP3, and the talk/news channels sound about like a 24k MP3. I think I'd rather slightly fewer channels if it meant better quality.
2) Since they transmit every bit multiple times, (either 3 or 4 copies of the stream is sent at once on a time delay, I can't remember which), dropouts are EXTREMELY rare. They have both spatial (two satellites you can receive at once), frequency (broadcasting on multiple frequencies), and time (broadcasting the same content multiple times) diversity. Nice.
3) Yes, you're paying $9.95/month for *SOME* channels that have commercials. Most channels don't have commercials. Even then, the stations that DO have commercials air far far less than the FM stations I've listened to.
4) You get some neat features like being able to display artist/song for each channel.
5) Wow, some of the channels air things you'd never hear on the radio. The main comedy channel has more swear words per minute than you could imagine. None of the songs have the "bad words" beeped out. If you have kids, and are concerned, you can have them block any channels you don't want them to listen to. (Each channel is pretty clearly marked on the guide if it has strong language or not)
6) Some of the channels do sound kinda amateur-hour. Kinda like college radio. I'm sure as time progresses they'll get more refined, but... Wow, some of the DJ's and commercials for themselves are cheesy. Really bad.
7) They do have some really cool channels. CNN Headline News (the audio from the TV channel - usually works well except for "Nothing can describe the images you're seeing now..." bits), The Discovery Channel Radio, etc... Keeps me entertained.
8) If you're a channel flipper, the delay between changing channels is kinda long... 1/2 to 1 second.
9) Overall worth it for me. The total of 1 to 1.5 hours a day I spend in the car is at least enjoyable now. I've only had it for 3-4 weeks, but it's kept my attention that long.
Nor do I really see the relevence to my comment. The fact is that people who wanted radio up until the late 60s in Britain PAID THE BBC TO PROVIDE IT FOR THEM. They paid money which went directly to the BBC, nothing was taken by government, nothing was given to any other organisation. Further, IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY IT, they didn't have to, but they wouldn't be allowed to receive radio either.
And that is the bottom line. The assertion is being made that nobody has voluntarily paid for radio. That is not true. Until the late 60s, people in Britain who wanted to receive the BBC paid the BBC for the right to do so.
Completely irrelevent. This is about the British Radio licence, not about the TV licence. And the radio licence was abolished once non-BBC radio channels became available in the UK.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If the channels are good enough, I will gladly add this in
addition to my mp3 player.
The key, obviously, is programming. I have been radio-free
for years and sometimes I just wish someone would choose
good music for me... but every time I listen to the radio I
realize how unlikely it is because you are not the customer;
you are the product.
With these guys, you are the customer, so I think they are
more likely to come up with good programming.
I wouldn't say that, the annual ~$160 (tv) licence fee isn't exactly worth taking to the streets in protest.
I wasn't claiming that they were rioting in the streets, but everyone I knew always had a grumble about it.
Now, I agree (like I said above) that the $160 pays for some damn good programming (both TV and Radio). I've always like the Beeb (and stream it here in the states). But that's beside the point. I was simply saying you couldn't equate people in Britian paying for TV (and Radio) because, for all intents and purposes they have to, with people signing up for XM Radio here in the states.
I can be rather a news junkie at times, and am looking into SatRadio for that.
Sure you can carry a ton of MP3's with you and get all of the music you need. But, pre-recording a bunch of news shows doesn't get you too far. (They tend to get old after you hear them a few times.)
Of course the two things I would want to listen to, NPR and FoxNews (I like to hear differnt sides of the same stories) are each on the competing SatRadio service. That's kinda screwed.
But, I can't tell you how great this is for long drives. Even driving through SoCal for an hour, and I have to change radio stations, usually in the middle of somethign interesting. And that is just on an hour drive.
It gets worse the further you get from a big market. On time, some years ago, driving thru a state that will remain nameless, I was able to pick up 5 different sations in the middle of nowhere (which was a fairly high number). 4 out of the 5 stations, I kid you not on this, were playing that Achy-Breaky Heart crap. I'm sure the 5th DJ was just queuing up the record.
SatRadio would be perfect for avoiding this.
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
Here's what I'd like to see:
In these satellite radios, put in a 802.11b wireless network card and a decent sized hard drive.
Allow me to download mp3s from my computer directly into the car. (This is what I'd like to see even if I didn't have the sat radio).
Allow me to stream the service into my house via the network from my car outside. Now I don't have to buy a second receiver/subscription.
Allow the receiver to constantly record the music ala Tivo, so if I'm driving down the road I just push 'save' on the deck and when I get home, the song instantly uploads to my computer in mp3 format.
The technology is there; it really wouldn't be that hard to do, though it might end up draining your car battery depending on how much power it uses. Of course, the powers that be would never allow this (or would they, considering it's a subscription?)
The Internet is generally stupid
There is only one way this is going to work. Nix the subscription costs. Make it a standard in all new home stereo systems and car stereos. Make sure to broadcast all normal radio stations over it as well. Nobody is going to pay extra money to listen to the radio in their car, something which is free. And they're especially not going to if they don't get Don Imus, Howard Stern, and other popular radio programs. People also aren't going to go out and buy a new car stereo to switch. They're must be no effort involved. There also needs to be a standard. People will wait until one of these companies wins over the other one before they buy in.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
ITV certainly have to pay dues for their broadcasting rights, I think this money goes to HM Treasury not the BBC, but it probably goes toward paying for the World Service grant in aid.
The inconsistencies you point out are valid, but considering the BBC was the first broadcaster (in the world?) if you bought a radio/tv years ago it was asumed you were buying it to watch the BBC since there was nothing else. The system dates back to the 20's and is a little archaic, but it works, since all the signals (including the digital mux) are Free-To-Air how could they serious administer a system if people could just come along and say "I only watch ITV".
For £120 it's not worth the trouble, even if you don't watch the BBC you have to remember it keeps the commercial broadcasters in check, which is why we don't have adverts every 5 minutes like some countries.
Yes, but:
- I like to hear new music that I haven't been exposed to before.
- NONE of the 4-5 genres of music I like to listen to is broadcast on the radio where I live.
This is reason enough for me to get it, particularly with the receiver that can move from car to home. I'm sure there are many others in the same situation.If there were more independent radio stations and less corporate crap, this wouldn't be necessary.
bp
The BBC is not a government entity
You're right, I stand corrected.. but...
the government's sole involvement at all is it had the right to appoint members of a group of governors, who are chosen apolitically. The BBC's independence is considered important.
And I argue that the Beeb is closer to the Gov't than most independent companies. They held the exclusive rights to broadcasting in England until about 40 years ago. On paper it may be independent, but for the sake of what we're taking about its a lot closer to its gov't than the likes of XM Radio.
This is about the British Radio licence, not about the TV licence.
True, but its still analogous to the system for radio 40 years ago, except now they never got rid of the TV license when they allowed independent TV into the market. The British pay the TV license for the same reasons they paid for Radio: as you said IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY IT, they didn't have to, but they wouldn't be allowed to receive radio either. They lose the right to own a radio outright. You may technically have a choice, but for all intents and purposes unless you want to live in a cave you pay. It is similar today. You don't pay the license, you can't own a TV, regardless of whether you watch BBC or not.
And the radio licence was abolished once non-BBC radio channels became available in the UK.
In which lies the problem. The BBC had a monopoly on radio broadcast. You either pay and listen to any radio (even if you wanted to listen to foreign stations from across the channel) or you didn't pay and listened to nothing. Yup, I was wrong calling it a tax (I always thought it was. The damn bill showed up and the gov't would throw you in the clink if you didn't pay) but for all intents and purposes it was. Own a radio, pay the licensing fee. Sure, you're paying for the BBC's content, but by gov't mandate it was the only content you could receive from British soil. Not exactly the most free of markets.
Which was my point. People in the UK didn't pay for a radio license for the same reasons that people are going to pay for XM radio here. There, the only choice was either pay the license or lose the right to hear ANY radio (which was the prominent means of mass communications of the time).
Yeah, I got that one wrong, although its still a lot cosier to the Gov't than the likes of ITV or networks here in the States.
I agree, XM isn't comparable the BBC, the BBC is a non-profit public service with commitments plainly set out in its charter, XM is a commercial company whose aim is to extract money from its subscribers for the benefit of its shareholders, and like any commercial company, quite rightly too.
There's no guarantee they won't pack their content full of adverts and cut budgets on content production once a certain critical mass of subscribers has been achieved, which is basically the magazine model. It may get the the stage where, apart from countrywide availability, it's no better than tradition commercial radio yet you also have the privilege of paying for it.
With SkyTV (Murdoch owned)in UK you pay a handsome subscription fee yet they also have the audacity to run adverts, not excessively so, but it's not really fair play. It's not really a good path to go down, considering they could have you by the short and curlies in a few years, if they don't already.
What happens when I go under an overpass in my car? Last time I checked, satellite communications were line of site... Is my radio going dropp out ever 1/2 mile as a go up 'sunken' highways with overpasses ever 1/2 mile?
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
So - let's say your analysis is spot on. Current business charges subscription, not enough people sign up, company goes bankrupt. Then what happens?
I think exactly what happened with Iridium. The satelites are still in orbit. Somebody will pick them up out of the bankruptcy proceedings for pennies (probably fractions of pennies) on the dollar. This new company will only have ground crew maintenance & programming costs as overhead - not interest payments on the monsterous debt incurred during launch. Suddenly, it's very easy to make money on advertising alone - or at least convince investors that you will be able to do so.
The moneybags behind these first two companies will be screwed (much like Motorola for Iridium) - but the US will have free satelite radio.
I did, you apparently didn't read my comment, see my subject, I will not pay for _XM_.
There's a book I recall hearing about called The Age of Access by perennial techno-worrywort Jeremy Rifkin. In it, he postulated that we were moving toward a new phase in capitalism, where the relationship of people to property would shift--essentially, the rental model would become the norm rather than the purchase model. More and more of "your stuff" would really be the company's stuff, with your terms of use dictated by their licenses.
And when you think about it, the idea really doesn't even require government intervention--in fact, the less government regulation there is, the better it works out for the companies. After all, what they're rewarded for is simply steadily increasing profit. We like to think the free market dictates the way that they'll do that is by offering the best possible service at the best possible price, but other good ways to increase profit involve buying up your existing competitors and increasing barriers of entry to new potential competitors. (If your competitors have enough of the market share and enough "exclusive" deals or single-supplier contracts with your potential customers, you're not going to have the resources to compete if you're a startup.)
So, really, what's wrong with existing revenue models is that they don't offer as much of a chance for "customer lock-in." This is one of those interesting paradoxes about a market: it works really well as long as the playing field is level, but the most successful players will always have as their goal tilting the playing field in their favor--eliminating competition in any way possible.
This is, of course, why games have rules. And it's why markets are regulated. Whoops, we don't like regulated markets anymore, do we?
Hmm.
How many stations do I really want to hear Britney Spears on?
When you want to hear something specific, you listen to recorded music. When you want to hear a variety of the kind of music you like, you listen to the radio.
However, if you're the kind of person who avoids well-known things just to be mysterious and esoteric, you better stick to your CDs.
that there's nothing for you on XM radio, try their samples. I had the opportunity to see it demo'ed just before their official rollout - it was really nifty. I was able to find technical specs on the fcc website, hidden among various license actions. Here's an excerpt:
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
As an employee of a publishing company responsible for a magazine that is aimed at truckers, I can confirm the truckers are excited about satellite radio. Not only is XM a big advertiser in the trucking industry, but they have partnerships with several long-haul truck manufacturers for built-in XM receivers. I also understand the marine industry is seeing some of the action. The response at truck shows seems to be pretty strong. Some people are point out that many truckers will may not be willing to spend an extra $10 of their already limited discretionary income. But those who have driven for years say it is worth $0.30 per day when driving between cities.
So with this economic analysis in mind, exactly how much does the price of putting up a satellite have to drop before a company will start broadcasting radio channels for free. And even more importantly, when will a company like DirectTV start broadcasting their commercial channels for free. Wouldn't a regular cable channel like comedy central be willing to take some of their revenue from commercials and pay a satellite company to broadcast their signal nation wide for free. If they did this, wouldn't their user base would sky rocket enough to cover the cost
let me get this straight, I pay 9.99 a month to get (some) channels with ads, and all of that quality music the RIAA wants me to hear?? Wow, what a fucking deal. I think I'll pass, and spend the savings on an in-dash cd-mp3 player.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Excellent Point! You put it quite clearly, although you wrote too much. However, your argument does fail for channels that don't do advertising, i.e. HBO and the sirius network. And you also didn't mention that satellite broadcasting is far more efficient than cable or broadcast for every type of content except local news and entertainment.
So let me propose a hybrid approach - satellites distribute advertising supported channels for free (users pay only the cost for recievers, which could be subsidized, and they do need to improve their reliability). Using the existing subscription-verification methods they have in place, they charge extra for the premium channels. Local broadcasters and cable companies either go out of business, change their business model, or operate with the satellite providers for local content (news, entertainment, and particularly advertising inserted into the other channels), broadband internet (particularly upstream, since satellite can handle downstream), and on-demand TV (especially via PVRs). It's that simple.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Signal and quality is great! I have a Sony receiver (the silver and purple one) in my 2001 Honda Accord. Signing up online took me about 15 minutes, and it took another 40 minutes to drill the mounting bracket in and install my antenna inside my car by the back window cleanly (that was at night)
What a treat it was when I got it working. A majority of the good channels are unfiltered (cussing, racial slurs and various other profanity) is allowed if you are into that thing. The DJs are moderately cool.
Service is great. Only complaints I have are with the Sony deck, and they are: 1. Not enough presets, 2. Backlight and the LCD suck and will cause accidents if you attempt to read it while driving, 3. No direct station access on the remote (just presets, who thought of that?) The only places I've ever lost service is when you are in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Highway and you pass under a bridge. If you are going at least 50, you won't lose your tunes. Also, the overhangs at gas stations will cause your radio to chunk out "No signal".
Thought I'd pitch in my two cents. Fire off some questions if you have any.
-Pat
You will pay for it, AND get the pleasure of being 'informed' of exciting new products as well (it is not a bug, it's a feature). Given that the RIAA will still dictate what you can here, receive a stipend for every song played I don't see how this is any better than FM unless you are a long haul trucker, or a cross country flyer. I agree there is the potential for a KILLER APP, but it won't make it to market...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Please take a look at the channel listings. here. before talking about it.
... and on and on. Along with mixed style dance channels, like "club dance", "ballroom", "Salsa" and so on. It should be clear that everyone would benefit from the variety; sometimes you just happen to flip to a channel where you hear this incredible bluegrass tune that you really like, although you may have zero exposure to that type of music.
... one 90's, one 00's, 8 Jazz, 30 classical channels. 2 Asian, 10 Euro's, Gothic/Industrial, one middle east/Indian, one Maria Callas, one Bach, one Mozart, one Piano concertos, one Baroque, one Dead Can Dance... you got the picture. I'm not saying that "No doubt" or "Snoop dog" aren't good, but these are the music we are force fed. I want to know what's really out there. I don't want to listen to whatever the RIAA tells me to listen to. Unfortunately, the MX is doing just that - force feeding us the RIAA tunes.
Now, I would be willing to pay a lot of money for unlimited high quality of music, I'd say for up to $50 a month. But the channel listing tells me that these programs are not for any serious listeners. Now I am not an audiophile, but I can tell you what I'd like to see on paid radio: For example, under "Dance", there should be at 40-100 channels of specialty, like "techno", "house", "drum&base", "gothic/industrial", "jungle", "trance", "hip hop", "tango", "Son/Cuban", "Walts", "Twists/swing", "2step/cha cha", "rumba", "Conga", "country","disco"
Classical music fans nationwide suffer from the lack of choice. If they spawn 100 classical music channels than I'm sure classical music fans have the pocket to purchase the subscription. But "The Greatest Music of the Last 1,000 Years?" give me a break. Why don't they just say it as it is: "the bubblegum classic channel." "the billboard top 20 underground music channel."
It doesn't take a lot of money to do so, either. Once the fix cost is invested, it doesn't take much to add channels. Underground musicians don't ask for a lot of money to spread thier kind of music.
Do I wanna listen to Britney or backstreet boys on 100 channels? No.
I personally will subscribe and pay my dollars if they get at least 2 opera channels, 40 dance music channels, 1 spanish/classic guitar, one 30's, one 40's,
Montana: 882,779
N. Dakota: 633,666
S. Dakota: 733,133
Wyoming: 479,602
Total: 2,728,180
The total population of those four states is about what one of those services needs as a subscriber base to break even. You'd need an awfully high subscription rate to make much of your money there.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Adding satellite radio to the trucks would make them more expensive and drive up the upkeep. Why should a rental agency spend the money when it's obvious that people will pay to rent a truck with a broken radio? Budget, Ryder and U-Haul will spend money to keep their losses down and revenue up, so they'll do things like tracking their vehicles by satellite so they can schedule better. Satellite radio is a non-starter for them.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Better yet would be a "driving channel" tailored to U-Haul's needs; reports on weather, traffic and construction problems, along with emergency info ("Smash your truck?") and the helpful hints you mention.
The advantage is that 99% of the content could be re-used for Ryder and the rest of the rental community (eg, drop in vendor-specific info) *and* they could re-use the rest of the time for a national "travel" channel that others would be paying for, including commercials. It'd be like 10 channels, 9 for rental cos and 1 legit "travel" channel that shared 95% of the content. That's a no-brainer.
Not ever again having to listen to those #%)&@$*#% radio commercials OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!! I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer "reacts" to the guy that said he invented the "two people talking" commercial format. :)
If I hear that Smart n' Final "professional chef" commercial or that stupid "O come all ye file folders" Office Supply place commercial again, I'm going to perform an "instant disassembly" on my radio.
The morning show on our talk station does TWELVE MINUTE COMMERCIAL BREAKS TWICE AN HOUR!!! That's just wrong.
There just might be a market for satellite radio if they can reduce the advertising to at least tolerable levels.
well, crap!!! I hope that Ford pick SR up...it sounds like they are the more Ideal for car travel(except in newyork or chicago or detroit where downtown has very little line of sight in any direction.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I don't see this. As far as I understand, you have the same problem here you have with regular AM and FM radio stations -- a handful of companies own more than a majority of the stations in every market (e.g. ClearChannel). Here you have one or two companies controlling which stations have access to the satellite radio subscription audience. At least with ClearChannel you have local DJs (sometimes) who might add a little local color to a station.
Have you ever noticed how much cable TV sucks? Sure, there are a handful of cool programs out there, but easily 90% of all cable programming is utter crap. I would expect the same to happen with satellite radio.
As far as it shakeing up companies like ClearChannel, I seriously doubt it. In fact, I would expect a company like ClearChannel to look at this as a way of saving tons of money. With satellite radio you would only need to pay for one station and staff to broadcast the whole country. In fact, one staff could handle several channels of satellite content.
No, when it comes down to it, I think ClearChannel and their cronies will love this, and it will only mean a more homogenized listening experience for all of us.
You're very wrong.
The reason both cable and satellite companies charge about the same price is that they both have to pay ESPN and the other big cable channels for the rights to air their singles. The commercials these channels air only cover part of their cost. So, just like cable companies, satellite operators do pay an incremental cost per viewer.
Only a small part of your $30-$40 a month cable bill goes to maintaining your cable line. In fact, many cable companies offer a very basic plan for under $10 month that only includes the local channels such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. This means the price to maintain your cable line has to be under $10 a month.
I imagine at least half of XMS's fee, goes to the networks on their service, not into their pockets, so if they gave away their service for free, they'd be loosing money on each subscriber.
Sig goes here
Cable channels such as Comedy Central already subsidize the costs to air their channel by allowing cable and satellite companies to insert their own commercials into some of the commercial breaks. So, in effect, they are paying Cable companies to broadcast their signal.
With half of America already subscribing to Cable or satellite television, Comedy Central doesn't need more potential viewers; they just need those who already have their channel to watch more of it.
Finally, if the analysis you and the poster above has given is correct, don't you think your plan would have already been put into place?
Sig goes here
At one time, about 15 years ago when I was 8, Cable TV didn't have commercials at all. They had breaks in the program, but those breaks were advertisements for other programs.
They didn't have commercials.. I wonder what law got changed that let them both increase prices, and force commercials down our throats. And cable TV survived too!