Slashdot Mirror
NPR Finds XM's Achilles Heel
PreacherTom writes "In the ongoing radio wars, one only has to listen to 20 seconds of Howard Stern's language to know that the lack of regulation gives satellite radio a distinct advantage. Of all the challengers, it seems that NPR has finally found a weakness in XM, which supplements its satellite coverage with earth-bound transmitters. A recent test found that 19 of these transmitters were unlicensed and another 221 exceeded their authorized power level, giving NPR an opening to press with an apparently sympathetic FCC. It certainly doesn't help that XM's own filings support their case."
XM is cool -- I tried it out for a few months and actually found myself listening to the radio for the first time in a long time. That ended when the lady of the house gave me her old iPod, which is now my primary listening device. I download a ton of independent music, go to a lot of shows, and also produce a few bands so I get demos all the time. A few podcasts make their way to the little device, and I'm happier for it. I'm 32, but it seems that most teenagers don't even know what a radio is, except for 88.7 FM or whatever station their FM transmitter for their iPod uses.
I think radio technology is old and dated, and I can't really see a future for it. I've been calling for the FCC to deregulate (or lessen regulations) on the old analog TV channels -- and it looks like others have too because the FCC is doing just that. Setting up large chunks of bandwidth for broadcasting is ridiculous, it would be like setting up large chunks of the Internet for one-way non-interactive websites. The future is about a la carte selections, narrowcasting, custom playlists, whatever. The future is not massive 50,000 watt transmitters hitting the numb masses, but about individuals selecting what they want.
I think the future is either WiFi-based communications, or EDGE-network communications. I already stream my music from my home server to my PDA via EDGE (HP PDA with Bluetooth dialup to my cell phone). It works great and I have instant access to gigs of music (and limited video).
I realize that I am in the minority here, but everyone who checks out my system loves it and asks how they can do it. For now, they can't do it easily, but I don't expect that to last as more cell phone companies embrace wireless access for the web. For now it will stay proprietary (t-zones, vCast, etc), but give it time and as more bandwidth is deregulated, more people will jump on the narrowcast system. I even download a podcast of a few bands that put an hour playlist together, and it is perfect for my drive. Interactive real-time broadcasts aren't that interesting to me.
The short future will be both local and satellite radio stations bashing each other over legal infractions, and that's fine -- let them spend their money on lawyers and lobbying Congress for more power over the airwaves. That future is only good for a little while, though. Right now people love the web over TV because they demand what they want, and someone supplies it RIGHT NOW. As the TV becomes more copyprotected, more people will demand more of the web, and suppliers will meet their needs.
As wireless connectivity reaches more of the masses, and becomes easier to use, and becomes faster, the days of broadcasting (TV, radio, newspaper, etc) will fall away, left as a memory to what the previous generation did. How antiquated. How cute.
Sidenote: Funny how radio can not compete in the same way as XM because of the FCC. The FCC was created to support big radio conglomerates and keep out little competitors. They're still using the FCC to keep their monopoly, without realizing they're leaking customers like a sieve.
The article says that NPR is filing a complaint with the FCC due to non-compliance by satellite radio broadcasters and devices. That's a perfectly reasonably thing to do. But both the article and Slashot summary imply that NPR has an axe to grind against Satellite radio. Is there some NPR -vs- satellite radio thing going on that I don't know about? It seems like that is pre-requisite knowledge for understanding this article.
Yeah, pathetic that they do investigative reporting. Who listens to NPR for that? I want my "Delicious Dish."
Something tells me you didn't feel bad to begin with. So why are you listening to NPR, if they offend you so much?
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
The problem is that people use FM transmitters in the XM or Sirius receivers to listen on their car radios. Most of these come tuned to transmit on 88.1 Mz. I frequently hear Howard, or Opie, or some other obnoxious DJ exercizing their satellite free speech habits on MY radio interfering with NPR programming. This is causing frequent complaints to the NPR stations. The post erred in that it is not the repeaters that are the problem, it is the in-car receivers. As unlicensed transmitters they are forbidden to interfere with licensed broadcasts. XM has admitted that many of the devices do not comply, they are too powerful and transmit over too large a distance. This was accepted by XM because they wanted to avoid having their paying customers being interfered with from other stations. NPR is fighting back.
Because you obviously didn't read the article. NPR is upset at the makers of satellite (and other) FM modulators. The modulators are overpowered and do not comply with FCC regulations. The manufacturers of the units have admitted this and just went on their merry way. So NPR is asking the FCC to hold these manufacturers to the regulations.
This is perfectly reasonable. Think of it this way. If Linksys sells a router with increased coverage area (because they exceed the power limits imposed by the FCC), and your neighbor buys one which causes your router to stop working, don't you think Linksys should have to comply with the law?
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"