Slashdot Mirror
Stern Will Jump To Sirius In 2006
UnanimousCoward writes "Howard Stern announced it on his current radio show, and several feeds including this CNET article are reporting that Stern has signed a multi-million dollar multi-year contract with Sirius Satellite Radio starting in January, 2006. As I've watched technology grow from the time I was listening to Stern in the eighties, I can't wait to hook into a shockjock-timeshifted-podcast..."
Okay, here's the question: Can the FCC fine Sirus stations like they can regular ones? Since it's private, they can't, right?
On XM Radio and its founder. Very interesting discussion of how they are gonna kill the Clear Channel republican monopoly. I for one am almost about ready to go out and buy one even though I cant stand Stern...
Swansong for Stern. I doubt as many of Stern listeners as predicted will plunk down their hard earned cash to listen to him. He is definetly #1 now, but that is sure to disappear once you have to pay to listen.
There are a couple of issues that have to be considered now that Howard Stern will become a Sirius satellite-only show:
1. Will fans pony up the big bucks for a Sirius satellite radio receiver and pay the monthly fee just to hear Stern? Remember, unlike XM satellite radio, Sirius is still quite rare as pre-installed on new cars.
2. Will Stern be unfettered by censorship and take the show to extremely raunchy levels of sexual descriptions and use of raunchy language?
Despite Sirius getting NFL broadcasts, they're still way behind XM in terms of public recognition.
OK, that out of the way, here is how I see it. First of all, it's a very novel solution to this whole "FCC is censoring people" stuff (which I don't believe, but that's a matter of opinon). I never would have thought of that. I wonder if any other shock jocks follow suit. Makes sense though. XM has a Playboy channel (I have no idea what's on it), so obviously they aren't subject to those kinds of fines. I wonder how substantially his program will change now that he's free to say and do whatever he wants. And I wonder if Sirrius will have any kind of limits or leash on what he can do.
As for moving to Sirrus, they've got to love that. As the article says, their stock jumped 15%. While I've never listened to Stern, the fact that I know who he is without having to read an article or something like that says he's popular (or contravertial, but in this case both). I bet this will do some great things for Sirrus's membership (although it might drive a few away on idological grounds, but I doubt more than a handfull). I have to wonder if there was any kind of bidding war between Sirrus and XM (which my family has a subscription to). I would think having a radio celeb go sat-radio only would be something XM would have liked to be a part of. This should also lend an air of credibility to the idea of sat-radio, if a big star did this.
On a side note, YRO never seems to have anything to do with Online any more. Why not just rename it "Your Rights"? Just a thought. Don't bother commenting on this part.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This might move me to buy a Sirius box.
The Stern show, despite all the acres of whining you'll see posted here in the next hour, is entertaining. It's genuinely entertaining, and it's on for 4-5 hours a day during what is usually a miserable commute for a couple hundred million people.
It's astonishing how many people will latch on to Tipper Gore's bleatings from a decade ago in order to think that they're somehow more moral than thou based on the radio they listen to.
So you don't listen to Howard Stern. Good for you, here's a cookie and a gold star for being able to stomach Morning Zoo radio or else Opie & Anthony style obscenity in lieu of titty chatter and New York kvetch-klatsches.
I'll see you in the store next year, buying a Sirius receiver once the FCC snuffs the last bit of original content from the already miserable airwaves.
The "Online" might be wrong, but"rights" are surely involved.
The fact that Stern's show is a major problem for the current nannies in Washington, getting a show on a medium that is subscription only is a big deal. Does it affect my rights? Sure does. My right to listen to what I want to listen to, without government censorship. I don't like Howard Stern, but I like the idea of the government controlling what he can and can't say on the radio a lot less.
The current rush by the government to "protect us" is just another link in the chain of despotism.
I for one can tell you why. I've been considering satellite radio for a while, though I'd only played with XM. I am not a huge fan of stern, but I do consider his show a core part of my day.
Stern going Sirius alone, is enough to make me go out and buy a Sirius unit. I am willing to pay.
I just hope I can get a unit similar to what I can in XM: A unit that transmits to my current head unit, I don't feel like replacing it as I just spent 1300 dollars on a system.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
But that's kind of a big risk...
Howard Stern currently has an audience of 12 million listeners.
( according to yahoo )
Is Sirius really expecting (at least) 8% of his audience to buy the equipment and subscribe just for Howard Stern?
Okay, so we know your opinion. I don't find him funny either. A lot of other people do. What's the big deal? You might as well a start an argument on which is the better colour: blue or red.
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
Long live the King. Ever since I first started listening to Stern on AM NYC radio in the 1980s, his arrival has been followed quickly by the demise of the medium, usually drowned in a sea of rightwing mediocrity. AM, FM drivetime, cable talkshow simulcasts, even the movies have seemed to go even further downhill since _Private Parts_, and the book's publication was part of paper publishing's deathrattle. I like Stern, and though many people think he's the Death of All Media (tastewise), I think he exploits each medium he conquers in new, unforseen ways (except the book, which was just funny). But apparently his (mostly rightwing) opponents seem to think "if that fool can do it bad, I can do it good", and then overrun his new territory. So does this latest announcement certify satellite radio's 2007-8 expiration date?
--
make install -not war
I guess you haven't really been to Sirius's website because you can sign up for a 3 day free pass to their live stream over the internet for the majority of their channels. They have a very detailed listing of what channels play what also.
I suggest you actually visit the sit before spewing false claims.
I forgot to mention Sirius offers free internet streaming for their listeners while XM charges $3.99/month for it and the O&A show costs an extra $2 also if you want to listen to them. There maybe some extra money for premium content from Stern but his regular show will cost nothing extra to subscribers.
Not sure if you have been tuning into the Howard Stern broadcasts since he got taken off Clear Channel, but he has been venting frustration over the fact that he can't do the show that he wants to do without being bleeped off the air. In any case, I'm sure that the money was of interest to him, but from his point of view, he's also taking a huge leap of faith in his listeners that they will all follow him to Sirius Satellite Radio and actually pay his salary too... From my point of view, if you look at people who have made enough money that they can retire very comfortably, as I believe Howard Stern has, you will notice that their ambitions in life is no longer about making millions and millions of dollars... On the radio show this morning, Howard was mentioning about how he had an epiphany at 5 years old where he just wanted to do radio, and when he was first starting out, he was dreaming of getting paid $250/week to do what he loves... I'm sure there's a degree of BS to this, but I also believe that he really does enjoy what he does, and now that he has proven to the world that he's the King of All Media, it's no longer about proving himself and making the money to show for it, as it is for him to just do what he likes. I really wasn't a big fan of his show until the controversy started with Clear Channel and started listening to him to understand more about the crazy people out there that just want to bring him down, yet ignore all other people doing the same thing as him or worse... Anyway... just my 2 cents...
Well since he is moving to Sirrius, he will no longer be apart of the rating system since you pay to listen. The current system is setup for AM and FM broadcasts in their respective markets for their respective time slots.
Actually, it's easier than that.
... DEFINE IT.
See, we live in a country that's under the Rule of Law. Most of us know what this means; simply put, the rules are written down, in plain english that cannot be misinterpreted (yeah, it's a stretch... but you get my point.)
Contrast that with a place under the Rule of Men. They can change what the law is, or what it means, at will.
And that's the problem with the FCC. They claim they'll punish indecency. Fair enough. Just one problem...
They haven't. And, they can't. Nowhere will you discover any legally binding document that clearly indicates what is and is not acceptable. And it glares in the face of "legitimate law" - it's illegal to murder someone, for example - no doubts as to what that means, right? Then, we'll also make it illegal to kill them with guns. In fact, we'll pass another law that makes it to kill them with guns, in a school. The merits of the examples notwithstanding, they illustrate that US Law is intended to be specific, using specific definitions. FCC "law" defining "indecent" is anything but that. In fact, it's nonexistent.
Do a little research on FCC's concept of "indecent". You'll discover that it basically starts with Mob Rule (actually, "Single Loudmouth Rule"), and it's final interpretation is based on nothing more than the whim of the FCC executive.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Are the top dogs in the FCC Christian? And if they are, is it relevant to their actions?
Are they simultaneously serving as officers to a broadcasting corporation, or a major stockholder to said corporation, or receiving kickbacks from said corporation?
Is he leaving because of the FCC, or because of the way Infiniti Broadcasting and Viacom responded to the FCC's tactics?
I listened to Stern from 1987 to early 2004, when Viacom's oppressive censorship and Stern's mindless ranting against President Bush* became too much to bear on the morning drive.
By the way, the only part of the FCC regs regarding obscene content on cable, section 505, was struck down as unconstitutional in 2000 and no effort has been made since.
Frankly, I agree that the FCC and other agencies are out of control, having near-police powers, and should probably be abolished or totally revamped. The FCC shouldn't even be regulating cable at all, being as their only real use is to avoid spectrumn interference and that is not applicable to cable.
* Stern was a supporter of Bush, based mainly on his handling of the terrorist threat, until Viacom started censoring half his show. He somehow decided this was the President's fault, even though this had been going on for decades through even the Clinton administration. The only difference was that Viacom had forced Infiniti to actually hire a clueless guy ("Dead Air" Dave) to push the button on his show.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
But here's the interesting thing... Now that he's announced that he won't be renewing, he'll essentially have the next 15 months to promote his Sirius gig, and encourage people to buy the hardware and subscriptions.
CBS/Viacom, and terrestrial radio in general, can't afford to give their competitor that kind of free ride.
Even though Stern has a contract, I don't think they'll keep him on the air. They'll have to pay him out (or he'll take them to court, and win, just like he's doing with Clear Channel over the 6 markets they kicked him out of), and they'll have to put a replacement show on, even though it'll hurt their ratings and advertising revenue.
Stern will not be on regular Radio for the entire period between now and his Satellite debut. (He hasn't publically predicted this, but if you look at how he's finally gotten his website together this year (He had no website up until this year) I'm sure he knows this to be true.)
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
A report on Reuters today says that he generates $80m in direct revenue (a Merill Lynch analyst estimate), but that his departure will drain *much* more than $80m because, for instance, so many other shows are "packaged" with his show.
The Reuters article claims that "several analysts" predict a ripple throughout the industry, even though his direct revenues are only a tiny fraction of the $1b annual revenue of the producing company, Infinity Broadcasting.