Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Radio in Fiscal Trouble
prostoalex writes "It looks like Sirius Satellite Radio is going through its worse times. From the same article XM Satellite does not seem to be doing well either, even with 200K customers. Will it signify the end of the satellite radio?"
Under the new plan, which is subject to regulatory and shareholder approval, current holders of Sirius common stock will together hold 8 percent of the new common stock.
:)
Uh, yeah, I know I'd vote for that.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Will it signify the end of the satellite radio?
As someone whose has XM I really hope that they pull through. It's one of the best services I've seen in a long time and just about the only way to get some good blues and jazz in your car outside of cd's. I'd pay twice as much for the service just to keep it alive.
Keep Austin Weird!
Sure satellite radio seems nice, but everything's too expensive to be worth the trouble. $299+ for the receiver, then another $10/mo for the service. Not a good business model when your competiton is free.
Maybe people are feeling the squeeze on their wallets from all the market problems we've been having, and are unwilling to commit to something that seems to be almost 100% luxury.
I know that if I were concerned about my retirement fund, I'd be cutting back where I could to put more money there.
When this thing came out, many people didn't say "can't" or "shouldn't" when it came to luxury purchases. Now, though, people are keeping their wallets in their pockets a bit more.
You mean satellite radio ever began? I mean, sure, I've seen commercials for it, but I know of no-one who has it, and I know so many tech-geeks who go out and buy the latest and greatest just because it's new (well, okay, not so often in this economy), and yet none of them have it.
I can think of a lot of reasons why it wouldn't be doing so well though... how much does it cost to put a satellite into orbit or "rent" one of the ones already up there? And how much are they charging customers per month for the service?
200,000 customers? In a major metropolitan area, like New York City, one radio station can have that many listeners. It sounds like a lot, but it isn't.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I'd pay twice as much for the service just to keep it alive.
:-)
Not wanting to speak on their behalf, but I'm fairly sure that if you offer they'll accept
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. I mostly listen to the radio when I'm in my car. Since I live in a big city, I'm rarely in my car.
2. And when I am in my car, I listen to traffic, weather, or my own music collection or local radio.
3. The exception is long distance trips. Perhaps one multi-hour drive a month.
4. At home, I have a big music collection. Stuff I actually bought over the years. (Don't blame MP3s in my case). I also have digital TV, with it's music channels. Plus a collection of reasonable local radio stations (and many more unreasonable ones)
So! Someone has to remind me why I should spend $$$ for this service. I can see why some people would spring for it. Just not me.
Damn, it's snowing... there goes summer...
The FCC just announce standards for Digital Radio: fcc.gov
If "clear signal" is one of the key benefits of satelite radio, I would call this a major killer of the industry. Can you say "I-R-I-D-I-U-M"? I plan to be operating XM Radio in 6 months after I pick it up on EBay for $50.
I'm pretty sure with all of the deals these companies have signed with auto makers, all the customers they already have, and most importantly the millions of dollars in satellites overhead, they wouldn't just let them crash into the ocean because their revenues are starting out low.
Even a massive project like Iridium eventually found a buyer. Even if both of these companies go bankrupt it would be an attractive purchase for some investor.
I am personally kind of surprised that they were even able to get online. Sure there's a market for coast-to-coast single channel coverage, but how much of the market can truck drivers cover?
Most people spend 99%+ of their time driving within 50 miles of home, where one radio station will cover them. Anyone who's all that picky about what they listen to will probably want to listen to CDs anyway. Personally I'm probably going to get a car MP3 player (I was waiting for an OGG player but I'm tired of waiting).
I spend $120 a year but I send it to public radio.
The sat radio services have been live for what, less then two years? It seems disturbing that a venture of this size wouldn't have had a longer term plan.
Sat radio is a great idea, and an idea that I have held off embrasing due to too many uncertianties. Why they chose to go with propritary hardware for their services is beyond me. $200-400 for the setup, and if the service goes out of business, you can't just call up the compitition to reprogram the radio.
This can, and should be able to work in the long run; It's just that good of an idea.
The Internet is generally stupid
Nah, they'll probably do the same thing as satellite phones. Declare bankrupcy, ditch their debt, and then take off. Heck, WorldCom's doing it and other bankrupt telecoms, why not everyone else?
People used to joke that new startups were following the following model:
1) Create a website
2) ?
3) Profit!
But I posit that the today's companies have revised that to:
1) Create something unprofitable
2) Run up massive debt to pay for massive capital costs
3) Declare bankrupcy
4) Profit!
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
Satellite Radio and XM will basically become options on luxury cars so that those companies can get paid up-front for service. The manufacteurer will then pass off the cost to the consumer, and most likely the monthly fee will disappear. Or, they maybe just make it standard in luxury vehicles. The possabilities for markets for their products are there. I just don't see them using those markets.
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
I thought all satellites had radios since sputnik.
Oh wait, you mean satellite RADIO... thats out?
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Ssshhh! ;-) But, yeah I agree with you. I have Sirius and 100 channels was a bit overwhelming at first, but now I've grown into it and it's the best thing that ever happened to radio. I really do hope it survives.
In 4 weeks I'll be in the middle of the Mohave Desert, listening to jazz, swing, the BBC, etc. where I got bugger all last year.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
AP has a story published Oct. 21st about how local station(already has a huge market share) can now broadcast digital radio. Why buy a subscription for a satellite radio signal instead of catching a free local stream?
Another thing, most people listen to the radio for local weather and traffic conditions. Satellite radio doesn't supple that need.
Here's the AP story:
Digital Radio May Give Shot In Arm To AM, FM
Some Stations Will Broadcast With CD-Quality Sound
A few months from now you'll be able to hear AM and FM broadcasts like you've never heard them before.
Some stations will broadcast digital signals with CD-quality sound.
Dennis Wharton with the industry trade group, the National Association of Broadcasters, said stations are already buying the equipment needed to transmit these signals.
He said it'll mean local radio won't become a second-class communications service. Wharton said digital radio will allow stations to compete on an equal footing with cable and satellite-delivered radio services.
In order to hear digital AM and FM broadcasts, you'll need a special radio. But you'll still be able to hear analog broadcasts on the radios you have now.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I think you guys forget the number of people who drive most of everyday. Think Semi Drivers. Think Delivery Trucks. Think Tow Trucks. A lot of those guys own their own trucks, and travel across 'radio borders'. We all know how limited radio is, and how statios in different cities are all copycats.
Satellite Radio gives you more choice, and you don't have to worry about 'blackout' areas between major cities. I actually listened to AM one morning driving I-65 bewteen Indianapolis and Chicago when I was 18. How many 18 year olds (who don't get their asses kicked) listen to AM radio?
Some places are just that barren.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
What does XM offer that traditional radio doesn't?
Let's see, no subscription - no wait, I have to pay a per-month fee. Traditional radio is free.
I don't have to listen to ads? No, wait, I am paying for my airtime to listen to people trying to sell me stuff. Same as t-radio.
Quality of music? I must be able to listen to indie artists and hard-to-find cutting edge stuff, right? Gee, that doesn't seem to be the case either.
Static free? Hmm, most of the time my FM is static free, too.
So I'm just not seeing the value of paying $300+ for a receiver and $120/yr for the service. The cost-to-benefit ratio is just to high.
If they got rid of *all* the ads, I would probably do it in a heartbeat. But I'm not paying to have someone push product on me. (Note that I don't have cable TV either...)
Matt
that it would fail.
Why?
Recall Iridium, the satellite mobile telephone service that failed?
Well, Sirius is only offering to bring audio noise 1-way down from the satellite. No full duplex!
If duplex lost, simplex can't hope to win!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I don't know about anything else, but the attempt to shift everything from a "purchase" to "rental" model bothers me enormously.
s is one thing. Sure, inkjet consumables are a ripoff, but at least the thing doesn't eat money when I'm not using it. But if someone tried to sell me a printer for $150, plus $20 per ink cartridge, PLUS $5.99 PER MONTH, I would behave badly.
I don't mind in the least paying $300 or $400 for a nifty gadget.
I have VERY HIGH SALES RESISTANCE to anything that carries a "monthly" fee for anything. My nifty gadgets OFTEN last for, say, 100 months (a bit over 8 years) and I am quite capable of multiplying a monthly fee by 100.
When I buy a $20,000 car, I'm quite agreeable to considering a $300 or $500 add-on.
But a MONTHLY fee? Forget about it.
Give-away-the-razor-and-make-money-on-the-blade
Perhaps I'm not the only consumer who can multiply by 100 in my head.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
ok, so XM is expensive, that's true. And all things being equal, it's very tough to make it up on volume when you're loosing money on each transaction. I currently have XM, and to be honest, I don't know if I'd buy it again, but I do love having it
That being said, here are three reasons to get it:
So, reasons not to get it?
If you blog it...
According to the recent New Yorker article on Willie Nelson, he loves satellite radio which lets him listen to a few of his musical inspirations (in cluding Frank Sinatra). But how many of us really are on long drives in tour buses with drivers?
I'd like to see them offer programming from other countries. Give me a feed from the Australian Broadcast Company, or the BBC, even plug in the Voice of America stations (if they allow that now) to hear what we're telling other nations about ourselves. Let Grandma listen to radio from the 'old country'. I love listening to radio stations on the net now and I think to have *that* in your car to listen to would be more a great selling point.
There is, IMHO, no chance for Sirius & XM to survive as presently organized. XM needs over one million subscribers to break even - they have 200,000. Sirius has similar needs, but not nearly as many subscribers. Does this mean that things are hopeless ? No. Their orbital assets are real, and have real value. Just like in the case of Iridium, the initial investors will take a bath (those that didn't cash out) and the reborn companies will be able to make a profit.
Remember, in the Satellite world, bankruptcy can be part of the business model!
1. The quality sucks (96kbps... yummy)
2. You're still limited to the formats of your local stations, which means limited choice and lots of commercials.
The only thing they've added is shitty digital sound... how exactly is that going to kill satellite radio?
"And like that
I bought an XM radio kit with some of my signing bonus last year. Since I was going to commute one hour each way down the interstate, I justified the cost to myself as a nice way to have better programming for my commute. The station guide seemed interesting enough...I could get BBC radio, CNN, CNet, a channel of standup comedy, selections of music that interest me, and so on. The $10 each month seemed very reasonable for commercial-free options that I'd enjoy.
So, I bought the kit and I installed everything as per the manual. I activated my account. I got everything in order. I started listening that night. It was really cool to be able to get a continuous mix of house techno and, with the spin of the dial, CNet news. I loved that, if I wanted a laugh in the morning, I could listen to comedians with talent instead of shock-jocks with carnival barker voices. Everything was all well and good...
And then two weeks went by, and I still couldn't keep a signal over my commute. I also started noting that I couldn't keep a signal in-town all that well. I also made a couple drives through the major metro areas of central Florida and could not keep a signal. This started becoming frustrating. It was about this time, though, that I noticed the programming wasn't all that good. The comedy channels just played the same handful of routines by trite comedians over and over again. The 80's station wasn't really covering what I wanted to hear, either. Slowly, the stations I was enjoying just became boring.
After letting XM take two weeks to try and resolve their issues, I called again, only to be told by the support rep that there were not any such problems and that everything was my fault. I explained my configuration to her and she agreed I hadn't done anything wrong. I told her that XM had been given a month of opportunity to communicate with me and hadn't done so, and so I needed to cancel my account. She then asked me to hold the phone for a minute. When she came back, she reported that there was indeed a problem in my area and, if I could just sit tight a little bit longer, it'd be fixed.
By this point, I'd given XM a month, and I needed to return the radio soon or I wouldn't be able to get a refund from Best Buy. I cancelled my account and took the radio out of my car. I was a little disappointed that I lost my alternative to crappy commercial radio, filled with advertisements, music I hated, shock DJs, and insipid conservative commentary on the news stations. Then I discovered I really rather enjoyed the one alternative I had left- NPR. I started listening to Morning Edition and All Things Considered over my commute, both of which are pleasant and informative shows, and both of which are provided commercial-free.
So, I save my $10 every month and, every third month or so, I use the money to treat myself to a new audiobook or a couple of CDs when I want an alternative to NPR. I really have to say, if you're going to get XM just to have an alternative to standard radio, see if there aren't some local or public stations you like first. Here in Tampa, we have something like two NPR stations and a local, commercial-free station that runs some excellent world news, commentary, and music you'd never find even on XM.
I don't know about anything else, but the attempt to shift everything from a "purchase" to "rental" model bothers me enormously.
That's great and all, but this argument does not apply to satellite radio. You are not renting anything. You are paying for a SERVICE.
I pay a guy $20 a month to mow my lawn. I could do it myself for free, but I like the service.
"And like that
I see this as the major fault of the DR plan. Why would I pay for a service that uses advertisements to suppliment income? By the way, I don't use cable for the same reason. I believe if you pay for a service, you should exclusively get what you pay for and no extra baggage. If the service has ads, then the service should be free or public. I think a better plan for DR would be to incorporate multimedia broadcasting. You know, like what 224.0.0.0 nets were reserved for (but not used anymore). I think it'd be great to have an on board computer that gets continuous weather updates and news reports (like what I have on my pager, but more detail). So you could get updated weather maps and news with some live video. Yes, maybe not today, but the service definitely has promise. Just drop all that ad crap. I won't pay for ads!
Maybe it's time for satellite radio to adopt the Spring and Fall Fund Drives that plague avid listeners of public radio.
I forecasted this was going to happen about a year ago here on Slashdot. It was so clear then to me.
Simple economics. They need 400k subscribers on day 1. They need millions of subscribers within a year. They're off by an order of magnitude.
I have first hand knowlege and experience of how these things get off the ground in the first place.
Basically, the marketing is done too much by engineers and scientists.
I contributed to this by co-developing a very sophisticated software application that analysed terrain data from US Geological survey. The results showed that there was a huge potential target market.
You've got scientists on the one end wanting desperately to build a new bird that does what no other bird does. What they have no clue about is how the consumer couldn't give a damn that incredible technology was involved and hundreds of millions spent to bring some sweet sweet sounds to their automobiles.
XM is far simpler than some of the other 2 way projects like Satellite telephones (American Mobile Satellite, dba Motient).
They need to find a way to put a bird up there that not only provides a nice product, it's got to provide a revenue stream in the order of billions.
400,000 subs is only going to get you about $100M per year. You need to start out getting about $1B per year.
I say, follow the successful business model of the Internet. What put Internet commerce on the map? Porn. For some reason, porn enthusiats are very willing paying customers.
But how do you find out about new music? I like my music collection, but I don't fool mysef into thinking that I've already discovered everything that's good. To everyone who's saying local digital broadcasts will take this market - Clear Channel already owns all the radio towers in my area. I don't think digital clarity will make their content sound any more original.
Having said that, I'm holding off on sat radio until the receivers aren't proprietary.
The FCC adopted the wrong model for satellite radio. The pigopolists pretty much got what they wanted, and are suffering for it.
For technical reasons, there are only two satellite radio networks, Sirius and XM. Both have capacity for a lot of channels. The FCC decided to use a "market" approach and allow each company to choose details of its own technology, so their radios are incompatible. Imagine how well TV or FM radio might have done if different stations required different receivers! Consumers are locked in. Sure, it's nice work if you can get it, but consumers aren't quite as dumb as the companies wanted them to be.
Even worse, the duopolists were not charged as common carriers, but as programmers. So XM and Sirius determine what they will carry, and if they don't want something run, it won't run. Sure, they've figured out that they have to offer some kind of musical variety, so they have country & western streams, '70s rock streams, '80s rock streams, sports streams, etc. But the plain fact remains that they control the horizontal, they control the vertical, and a Sirius or XM subscriber won't be exposed to anything that the suits at Sirius or XM don't want them to hear. I guess to them, a stream playing Wilco and an NPR stream are radical enough.
So if this turkey fails, maybe somebody else will try again. If an operator were less greedy, and leased enough channels to independent programmers, then a workable business might be found.
- BBC World Service
- Fox News
- CNN Headline News
- ABC News and Talk
- The Weather Channel
- CNBC
- CNNfn
- Bloomberg News
- CNET Radio
- C-SPAN Radio
These are services that you can't get on the radio in 99 percent of the country, unless you use satellite radio. How many people will pay for this? Not many, but, this is probably another vertical market similar to over-the-road truckers.I haven't bought an XM receiver because I don't think the service will survive in its present form, and I don't have the disposable income that I had prior to the recession.
I haven't seen this posted elsewhere in this discussion, but an AM radio station in NYC has already brought HD-Radio on-line. This is interesting because I don't know of any receiver I can buy the handles this service at the moment. If HD-Radio doesn't add to the programming options we receive, however, no consumer will care about it. Then, IMHO, all it will be is a long-term way for the broadcasters to reduce transmission costs.
-- Dave Aiello
as someone who both has XM radio and is an installer in the mobile electronics industry, I'd have to say that XM is going to be around for a while, but Sirius may simply be a transient company.
The real question here seems to be "what is its attraction?" To answer that I'd have to say that most of the hype is more or less true. To compare choice in music between your local FM station and a satellite station, ask yourself what you hear most on your local FM station.
I'll use rock stations as a case study. More than likely there'll be one or two rock stations in your area if you live in a major market. I know in philadelphia the only way I can tell the difference between the two rock stations is by the talk shows that they air. Both stations pretty much play the same set of alternative, a little bit of guns and roses, and then a touch of heavy metal thrown in for good measure.
XM radio has the advantage over this setup simply because one company controls 10 rock stations, so they can coordinate music coverage between the stations and they can specialize in genres of rock. For instance there is one station that only plays alternative, another that plays folk rock, one devoted to heavy metal, and another just for hard rock. There is a channel devoted only to unsigned bands, then another that adopts the format of a university radio station; playing only the newest music and underground rap.
Local radio stations have to compete with each other and they are only given one channel with which to work. Therefore, they will have a tendency to stay in the middle of the road and go with what the focus groups tell them. That's why your local rock station predominantly plays what most people will like. That's why they sound the same.
Thinking about satellite radio in terms of local stations is why many people draw such damning conclusions. Its much more like a webcast: stations thrive on specialization and expert knowledge of a genre.
And as for commercials, you get on average about 1 commercial every 20 minutes. Compare that to 5 in a row every 20 minutes on local radio.
I'd pay twice as much for the service just to keep it alive.
Don't worry about satellite radio as the providers have some large pockets to draw upon - the auto makers. Next year, GM will offer the service as standard equipment on some of the vehicles - with a free year of service. If only a small percentage renew, then the satellite providers will be listening to satellite disco. If a significant percentage renew, then you are looking at a threat to FM.
On that note, with all these satellite head units running around in the new autos, it would make financial sense to provide some publically funded stations free-of-charge. That would be the largest opportunity.
$0.02
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
And has been offered since the early days of XM and Sirius both. It's the biggest reason why I will be getting XM.
As for the others, there's no market -- BBC is the gold standard in (English-language) international news media, everyone else trails behind. And VoA still is not allowed to broadcast to the U.S. -- there's a good reason for that, the government isn't allowed to (overtly) propagandize to U.S. citizens. XM runs several international music channels programmed in non-English languages; I couldn't tell you whether they also contain foreign-language news.
I've been itching to buy one of these as of late because I live in an area with poor analog radio reception. Personally, there are a couple of reasons I've been holding off buying one of these...(hope you're listening sirius/xm)
First of all, you can only get a receiver for your car! Is this really the only place they expect people to listen to the radio? Sony makes a unit for the XM systems that is car removable, but I have been told that is just the headset and the "base unit" which mounts somewhere like under a car seat is separate.
Secondly, they need to come up with something better than "just tear out your factory deck". I LIKE my factory deck, and for those who don't know this already, you get better resale on a car that has the factory deck in it. Tearing out a custom unit when it comes time to sell a car is a pain.
Third, and probably most importantly for the prudent consumer, "Will I make the right choice?" The topic of this thread alone should be enough to convince most that this isn't a device you want to run out and spend $300 on. I want a little bit of a guarantee that my nifty new receiver isn't going to become a useless box less than a year after I buy it because the network is no longer in business.
Which brings me to point four: "Why can't I have a receiver that works on both Sirius and XM?" Yes, I realize they are competing for the same market segment. I DON'T CARE. I am a consumer. I want some guarantee that if Sirius(the network I'd probably choose due to a choice of programming) ends up in bankruptcy court, I want to know I have the option of getting service with XM. These devices are just too much money to be throwing away. And I want one that works in my car as well as my home.
Sirius seems to offer a bit higher quality programming than XM. XM seems like a whole lot of the shit that is on television, only now I can listen to it. I can pretty well guarantee that most consumers who are willing to shell out $10 or more a month for this type of service, which is basically radio(something we're accustomed to getting for free), aren't going to willingly listen to a bunch of damn commercials. This is in fact the reason I would choose Sirius over XM. Because they have NPR. No commercials. I get to listen to the news in peace. Commercials are just plain annoying.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
It wouldn't surprise me if their finanical trouble started relatively small and then snowballed. My boss just had XM installed in the Company Pimp Van, but he we originally looking at Sirius. Our city was one of the initial test markets for Sirius, and the store he went into was covered in Sirius promotional propaganda. When he asked about it though, the salesmen wouln't even demo it, saying "Nah, you don't want that. They may be gone in a year - You want XM." I can't help but wonder if their sales reps aren't partially to blame for the decline.
XM Radio CEO announced when they first got started that they would need 1 million customers worldwide to break even. That's considered to be a lot of people, but then again, worldwide, it's really not. XM just needs some more time. And somehow I doubt they will have any trouble getting capitol from investors to keep them going as they continue to grow. Lets be honest, XM and Sirius are still really young when considering how long they've actually been offering a product, so it's way too early to rule them out.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Here's my idea. Use WiFi with an MPEG and have enough 802.11 APs around. Get streaming radio stations(CityWorld Best '80s is my favorite) over the Internet to play in your car. Sure, it'd piss off the RIAA, but it would give you a much better variety of music than corporate radio, without a monthly fee.
I signed up a couple of weeks ago and have not listened to local radio since. Clear Channel (owns more that 1600 stations) has destroyed local radio by programming the same 50 songs on whatever format they own. In addition almost every station syndicates the same mindless drival morning talk shows. Sirius frees you from this which is the real reason for spending the money to get it. Hopefully more people will realize this is the true reason for getting Satellite Radio. (Sirius would seem to be better than XM)
While he's being busted for the shell game that enabled them to get so much debt, the actual debt->bankrupcy->no debt->increased profits part is completely legal (IANAL, milage may vary).
/ isptelecom/story/0,10801,75316,00.html
Check out this article: http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/xsp
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
First of all, XM is a Sony operation through-and-through. The main reason XM is doing so well is that Sony has pumped a bunch of money into it, knowing up front it'll run at a loss for a long time. On the other hand, Sirius is an independent business with all the attendant risks and concerns. Unfortunately Sony is a giant, monopolistic bastard of a company who pimps cheap junk at ridiculous prices, so you can guess which side I root for in this battle. :)
Second, there is the satellite problem. Sirius placed a small number of satellites in very high orbit. This means each satellite can cover a relatively wide portion of the Earth's surface. Also, these satellites are in a more stable orbit so they have a longer life expectancy. Launch costs were higher, however. Conversely, Sony opted for low-orbit satellites. This means the launches were cheaper, but the life expectancy is lower, and each satellite has a much smaller area of coverage, meaning Sony had to use significantly larger numbers of satellites.
Worse yet, the XM satellites are unexpectedly having problems holding their orbit, so they're using fuel at roughly 3X the expected rate. This is one of XM's largest problems. Sony faces having to replace the satellites YEARS earlier than expected. I don't remember the exact figures to replace the satellites, but the price tag was vast -- like $700M or $1B or something equally insane.
Third, there is the ground station plan. Both systems use a network of repeater stations. These (combined with receiver onboard buffering) ensure you have a steady signal when you drive through an underpass, for example. Amazingly, Sony only has 75 repeater stations in the US, all near major cities. The Sirius plan calls for 2,500 repeaters spread somewhat evenly throughout the country. I don't recall how many Sirius currently has, but it's already much more than XM.
Fourth, of course, is the question of content. Sirius costs a bit more than XM, but it's also largely commercial-free. Sony charges you a not insigificant amount for XM, and then they sell advertising on almost all their stations anyway.
Fifth is the availability issue. Since XM is a Sony-funded effort, it was available everywhere almost from Day One. However, Sirius has a ramp-up plan which targets major cities first, then rolls out to everyone else over a 12-18 month period. This may be important to frequent travelers.
Sixth and finally, speaking of frequent travelers, another post pointed out that people like truckers are a prime target market for satellite radio. Interestingly, there is another important target market mentioned in the articles, but overlooked here so far (I think) -- ships. Merchant ships and cruise ships are potentially a HUGE market for satellite radio. It turns out that XM was very heavily focused on land-based use, and their offshore coverage is largely accidental. Because of this (and XM's use of low-orbit small-footprint satellites) XM coverage doesn't extend very far into the ocean. However, Sirius took that market into consideration when they planned their service, and their coverage extends quite far out to sea. Again, unfortunately, I forget the exact numbers, but the difference was serious, like 20 miles compared to 400 miles.
It's my opinion that Sirius is the better technology for these reasons and others (even ignoring my intense dislike for Sony), but we all know how often Joe Sixpack pays attention to little details like that.
Again, that was all from memory based on information I read almost a year ago, so please don't beat me up if I got any of it completely wrong (and please correct me). Hope you found it interesting.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
I recently purchased a car stereo, and noticed that most of the $300+ (USD) head units that handle satellite also play MP3. Satellite radio requires $10/mo service fee, and the purchase of a $150+ reciever.
Given the choise of spending at least $160 for satellite radio, or to just dump a few hundred tracks onto a couple of CD-Rs, I think I know which option most people will go with
I refuse to put that ugly shark fin on my new sports car! Too bad they could not figure out a way to just replace/reuse/recycle the old antenna. Since the shark fin has to be at the highest point of a car, where would you mount such a thing on a Jeep Wrangler or VW Cabriolet anyway?
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
I seriously considered one of these systems. Here are some of the reasons I didn't buy one.
Conflicting Standards - It is the norm in the electronics industry to come out with multiple formats in the hope of locking the users into your service. This is true of the Satelite radio services. So, once I buy a radio I am stuck with either the service I originally chose, or a large $500 hockey puck.
Can't Try-Before-Buy - I can't try before I buy, instead I have to shell out 300-500 buck-a-ronis and then pay a monthly fee - all to find out if it is worth having.
Fear of Bankruptcy - Even if I love my new stations, if my particular service goes belly up, my pre-paid time is lost, my radio turns into the hockey puck, and I am out of luck. In this business climate, it is a very real consideration to me.
Fear of Declining service - once they have you, they have you. If they need to actually make money, or failing that, loose less, the first thing to go will be the DJ's. And then all you will hear is the same songs over and over, programmed by Mort (you know, the guy who was once an assistant to the Manager for one of those 80's bands that you kinda recognize their song when it comes on the radio, but never really remember their name.)
No one will pay per-month charges for things they already get free over the air. That's why cable and satellite TV are destined to fail.
Best Slashdot Co
And what about cable? If I'm out of town for 3 weeks out of the month, I still have to pay full price, even if nobody was watching the TV! It's a rip-off, I tell you!
These sattelite radio companies are dead meat. They don't even have competition from digital radio yet and they are struggling.
Current radio operators will soon roll out digital signals alongside their analog counterparts. This will allow people to upgrade slowly to digital recievers without missing any programming.
Sirius and XM will be gone in two years.
-ted
I came close to getting SR but when I called I asked a simple question:
"What guarantee do you have in writing that, while the stations are currently commercial free, ensures that the stations STAY commercial free?"
This is the response
"We cannot guarantee at this time that we will remain commercial free."
After having a lawyer friend make some calls this was the response
"The commercial free aspect of our service is an introductory program only. We are currently pricing out commercial time and negotiating with prospective sponsors. We do not have any fixed implementation time yet."
Man, what ever happened to false advertising? Serves these shady bastards right for trying to fleece their customers. I feel really bad for all those who did subscribe.
In fact answer me this: Why, if I pay for cable TV, are their commercials? I remember early on that cable was virtually commercial free. I also clearly remember when Showtime, Cinemax, and the Movie Channel had zero commercials (HBO didn't have their own station yet. They were more of a production studio. I remember getting HBO's station when it came out, begging my Mom to get it, for one thing... Fraggle Rock, mmm Doozer sticks.... Ahhh...)
It's kind of like public education, when is enough money enough? Studios keep telling me that it costs too much to make a film. Well first lower salaries... oh wait that solves the problem.
The problem is that the contemporary marketing methods have no concrete, economic validity anymore. They have brushed aside capitalism in exchange for poorly disguised Socialism and we are paying the price. Capitalism is the idea the in economic terms it is survival of the fittest. True Monopolies, Government bailouts, restrictive cost of entry, and plain criminal racketeering have crippled Capitalism and forced people to embrace Socialism thinking it will solve the problem. This is the same mentality the satellite radio producers were thinking.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I work in IT at a Fortune 5 company (woohoo). The coffee cabana's here have been littered with guerilla marketing by people paid to seed interest in this technology for several months now. The spam they leave lying around trying to make it look like people are reading about it on their breaks are almost laughable. It is like those people who are paid to hang out in bars with a new mobile phone or wear designer clothes to "advertise" in stealth mode. The ads for XM are misleading and the local interest is fake. BTW, I don't care how they try to skirt around it: the service is NOT commercial free.
standard optionXM and the like have been heavy to push factory installs of these units in demographically selected automobile models. There are groups at the Big Three automakers that are designing marketing plans around these technologies. I imagine it will be along the lines of "first 6 months free!" then you get $10/month'ed to death like every other subscription service that you don't need. The lazy will keep paying it and think they're getting value.
transmission controlI think it is interesting how it is billed as satellite radio when in fact the majority of subscribers will be receiving signal not from the satellites but from the repeater towers they had to erect in the major cities to deal with the signal loss caused by tall buildings. San Francisco, Los Angles, New York, Boston, Chicago... they and more only run on the repeaters. Subscribers of satellite TV can tell you what happens to the signal on a stormy day or even a cloudy day. Ask this to your satellite radio provider: does it come with local channels?
epilogueI've discussed this technology with my family and friends and advised them to avoid it like the plague. I did the same thing when those DivX players came out. It is bad news people. Stay away. Stay far away. Invest your money in public radio.
Speak truth to power.
Um....well, the auto makers may have big pockets, but they have a deal to put receivers in their cars, one assumes they got the year's programming for free, and the receivers at a cheaper rate...not a deal to give XM and all money.
Yes, but there is no money in the short term, or even the medium term. Let's see, starting sometime next year XM gives free service so lots of people with new GM cars. That doesn't cost XM very much money (they might have product support costs, but they should be low, right?). For a year after that they have no extra money from those people. Then, after over a year they can start getting an idea about how many people keep the subscription.
Think about that.
We are still over a year from them getting money from the GM deal, and more importantly over a year from finding out how much money they will get from the GM deal. Do they have money to make it that long without going into bankruptcy?
How does that makes sense (to XM, not the listening public!)? It wouldn't make money for XM, and it would make the XM subscription slightly less valuable in as much as people that like the publicly funded stations would then have something they could listen to "whenever" without paying XM for anything!
And then there's the issue of paying $10 a month (after shelling out $300 for a SM receiver) and you still have commercials on some of the stations. Like I'm going to pay $10 a month for music that has commercials. I don't think so! I can buy a CD a month for that price.
Then there's this thing about not being a teenager with my first car. I try not to spend my entire day in my car, thank you very much. Their model is problematic for the majority of people and they probably don't even realize it.
-- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
AOL (and here is some text to get through the filters)
-- dieman - Scott Dier
--cyberfriend of mine told me she and her husband were so impressed with satellite radio when they got it for themselves that they installed it for their drivers on all the trucks in their small trucking company. She said-and I agree- keeping employees happy just makes more sense when it's a minimal cost like this. Long haul truckers cover a lot of turf and regular broadcast stations reception can change wildly sometimes depending on where you are driving, whereas the sat radios work most anywhere's and are very good quality audio. --nice to know there's decent bosses left.
This was my main worry when I was looking into getting the service, but I've now had the service with two different setups in two different cars, and the ONLY time I've had the service cut out was in a parking garage. It's almost scary how stong their signal must be to have been recieved in some of the monsoons I've been in.
Keep Austin Weird!
A lot of you are missing the point! There have been too many posts here about the virtues of "digital radio" and how it is going to kill satellite radio.
Satellite radio is appealing to people who live in cities with crappy local radio, or none at all.
It is VERY appealing to people in Clear Channel controlled cities that are sick of listening to the same crappy music over and over again with stupid syndicated drive-time radio shows. It is also appealing to people who are sick of hearing 10-minute blocks of commercials on local radio stations.
It is also VERY appealing to people who live in areas of the country where there is limited or no decent radio service. It is also very appealing to cross-country truck drivers, people with long commutes in areas with bad radio reception, and for recreational use in areas with bad or no radio reception.
All "digital radio" does is allow you to get the same shitty programming in areas that already have decent radio reception, but with much better quality. In other words- digital radio does almost nothing to compete with satellite radio.
All digital radio really does is allow the company that is licensing the technology to make a butt-load of money, while it allows the FCC to drool over the possibility that it can eventually get back radio bandwidth by forcing people to go "digital" in 5-10 years (just like they are trying to do with TV now).
I think in the long run that anything digital is a good idea, and I like the idea of digital radio in the future (although I don't particularly like the current plan for it).
I don't believe that hailing digital radio as a satellite radio killer in the next couple of years and extolling its virtues as a "free" service is valid. One of the biggest advantages to digital service is it can be much more easily controlled by the source than an analog signal. Sure- it's free now because there is no way to control who listens to it. What happens when all radio is digital? Do you honestly think it will be free then? In the mean-time- how do you think all these "free" radio stations are going to pay to upgrade all their equipement for digital service? Yep- more commercials. A lot of people complain that there are more commercials on TV now than ever before- ever wonder why? Sure, we can chalk a lot of it up to greed, but we also have to look at all these TV stations that are now being forced by the FCC to upgrade all their equipement to digital/HDTV.
Driving from Saskatoon to Calgary or Edmonton is an 8 hour drive (if you take it fast). You'll spend about 8 of those hours outside of any radio coverage.
XM is a panacea to people who drive between cities in Canada even a few times a year, because it makes it so much more bearable. Plus, the local radio stations have all consolidated under something called Rawlco radio (which puts out tho same bland shit as ever).
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I never liked the idea of satellite radio from the start? Before you start sniffing for troll aroma, let me say I already HAVE a form of Satellite radio - DirecTV. Since I mainly listen to pop/rap/top-40 stuff, DirectTV's digital audio-only stations play the same songs I listen to on FM, but guess what - I only listened to them maybe once or twice as a novelty.
Yea, commercial-free radio is neat... But some commercials are actually entertaining, Bennigans for example comes to mind. Yesterday, I heard a commercial for Time Warner Roadrunner service and the spokesperson was mouthing modem tones ("I no longer have to hear those bleeep beep blah pbpbpbpbpbpb dialup sounds") - it was hilarious. Do I like all commercials? No, certainly not - but missing the good ones would really suck.
I don't know about XM or Sirus, but the local stations all have DJs that put people from the area on the air to give shout outs, talk about things happening in the area and take requests. I don't care if the actual station is run out of a closet in Bumfsck, Alaska, as long as they're still Central Florida-centric, it seems more "personalized". Stations seem to realize that part of getting people to listen is listener participation. Hell, I've even called in a few times to vote for songs and make requests.
The other major problem with satellite radio is you can only listen to it where the equipment is. Yesterday, I was working on my moped (yes, I have a car too, the moped is NOT the reason for not liking satellite radio) in the garage - there's a boombox in the garage with a FM tuner, a tape player (what the hell are those things again?) and a CD player. I wanted to listen to music and didn't feel like getting up every 74 minutes or so to change CDs - so I put on the radio. If I had a satellite radio service in my car, I'd feel like I'm wasting my money since the majority of the time I listen to music (while working in the garage, mowing the lawn or in front of the computer) I wouldn't be able to use it. If I want to hear high quality commercial free music with just the songs I want - well, I can just bring my hard drive based MP3 player with me...
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Yes that ClearChannel.
http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/27/be ltway/index.html
Sony may have a stake. But ClearChannel, Directv and some others have the largest share I believe.
That is exactly why I think people who love radio should stay away from XM and use Sirius. Don't help ClearChannel extend their reach into satellite radio.
It's already showing. XM has under 5mins of commercials, but still they do have commercials. Sirius doesn't have commercials on their music channels.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Currently XM and Sirius are almost exclusively available as high-end aftermarket add-ons. Obviously this isn't conducive to helping the satellite radio companies reach their break-even points (if memory serves me correctly from other articles I've read, the break even point is either 500,000 or 1,000,000 customers).
Sirius is partnered with Ford (Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mazda, Volvo), Audi, BMW, DaimlerChrylser (Mercedes, Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep), and Nissan (Infiniti and Nissan). XM also has an impressive partnership list, including GM and more.
Once these OEMs start selling cars with satellite equipped radios from the showroom, sales are going to skyrocket.
"Another thing, most people listen to the radio for local weather and traffic conditions. Satellite radio doesn't supple[sic] that need."
to
"Another thing, most people watch TV for local weather and traffic conditions. Cable television doesn't supply that need."
Yet I find the weather channel easily on cable. I can also find breaking headlines easily as well. Besides, XM does not preclude flipping to FM for a local informational station.
I don't think the negatives you point out are enough to weaken the positives in most people's eyes.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Is if they started broadcasting Opie & Anthony. They provided compelling programming.
My afternoon commute has been a lot less entertaining since they got kicked off the air.
-nd
I used to think this way about inkjets too (they don't eat money when I'm not using it), but then I discovered that if I leave an inkjet unused for too long, the ink nozzles gum up, rendering the ink cartridge and all its overpriced ink completely useless. So the cost is more like $150 for the printer, then $20 per month because the cartridge has to be replaced every time it gums up. I've since sworn never to buy another inkjet. Laser toner doesn't do this.
I thought sirius only got fully rolled out less than a year ago.
-
I've also heard that XM and Sirius make you agree to obnoxious EULA-like conditions in order to subscribe. Apparently you're not allowed to tape broadcasts, you're not allowed to take the radio apart, you can't let someone else use the receiver on your subscription (except maybe in your car), etc. I don't know the specifics of this because I haven't tried to subscribe (and won't), but someone was ranting at me about it a couple months ago.
Anyway, if these services go down the tubes I'll say good riddance. I don't have anything against paid cable TV since at least in principle, the broadcasters are providing the medium. Electromagnetic spectrum, though, is a public natural resource and should not be turned over to private interests without a clear public benefit. (Cellular phones and traditional radio/TV broadcasting are also spectrum handouts, but satellite broadcasting seems even harder to justify. You don't get person-to-person communication and you don't get free, anonymous access to the broadcasts).
The 2.4 GHz band has both licensed and unlicensed users. I can legally transmit at high power in certain sections of the 2.4 GHz band because I have an amateur radio license. As a matter of general policy, unlicensed users are not allowed to interfere with licensed users and must accept interference from licensed users.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The purpose of my post wasn't to debate the benefits of Satellite radio, or the limitations of digital ground-based radio. You are correct: satellite radio is a (technically) better alternative to standard analog ground based radio.
My point is that the business model is doomed. The buying public knows it, and so does Wall Street (as reflected in the stock prices). The public has decided, despite the technological benefits, that a single receiver subscription for $10.00/mo. is not worth it. Each receiver has a monthly cost....that just doesn't fly. Maybe 5 receivers per account would be a better model...who knows?
Digital radio does give existing radio users an upgrade path, at their convenience, with no additional recurring charge. That's the model joe-sixpack is comfortable with, and that's the model that will succeed.
-ted
Probably going out of business for the cost of all the pianos, other insturments, sports equipment and other things that they dropped from cranes in their commercials.
After much thinking and weighing the benefits, I decided I was better off spending ten dollars a month supporting my local public radio station, WNYC. My music needs are minimal, I get the BBC and Radio France International off the Internet as well as from local radio (WNYC broadcasts the BBC during early morning hours, and a station owned by the board of education broadcasts RFI), and so there's just not much room in my life for subscription-based digital radio.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
If they want to know my music preferences I don't mind filling in an anonymous questionnaire. I don't want to give them my name and address, which have nothing to do with my music preferences. I get enough spam already by email. I don't want it by snail mail too.