XM And SIRIUS Radio Merging

lenny6998 writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that XM and Sirius Radio, the only two major players in the relatively new market of subscription satellite radio have announced a merger. "The two companies said in a statement that Mel Karmazin, the CEO of Sirius, would become chief executive of the new company while Gary Parsons, the chairman of XM, would remain in that role."

Comments

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

Wonder when they will announce price increases?

Re:Oligopoly

[SuperMario666]

Not really, as they will still face competition from traditional radio.

Egos

[teiresias]

A more interesting merger than XM and SIRIUS, is really now Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony being on the same network.

Can one satellite network handle two (well three) giant egos.

Let's find out.

Re:Egos

[airos4]

Well, it didn't work so well when one terrestrial company tried to contain the three of them. WNEW had them all at once, and O&A were treated as the little stepbrothers who were slapped with gag orders and so on regarding talking about Howard. I foresee tension in the Force.

On another note, how will this work hardware-wise? Can they in fact offer one united channel selection over any current hardware? Will they continue to offer two separate "branded" offerings that each go to the proprietary radios until new hardware can be rolled out?

Didn't the FCC already say no?

[MSRedfox]

We already covered the FCC saying no. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/2 2/2237249

Re:Didn't the FCC already say no?

[dr_dank]

I guess the check finally cleared.

Look up... waaaaay up

[MarkRose]

Methinks it's time to buy a telescope to watch them merge the satellite!

Re:Oligopoly

[silentounce]

Not all monopolies are bad. Some result in the best product, even considering price, for the consumer.

Huh?

[rudy_wayne]

XM and Sirius have never been profitable. They have both lost hundreds of millions of dollars since their inception. So what good is a merger?

Re:Huh?

[cdrudge]

If you look at the combined content of the separate companies, there is a lot of duplication of effort. Each provider has some exclusive content, but the majority of content is duplicated. There is also 2x the infrastructure, 2x the personnel, 2x the billing systems, etc. Well, it may not be exactly 2x but you get the idea. By combining the two, you combine the customer base yet cut the overall operational budget. Thus the bottom line is improved. There could also conceivably be some added advantages of freeing up bandwidth. Or they could sell of the radio spectrum too.

Nothing will be decided probably until at least years end. Even if they get approval, it will take some time to also figure out the technical details as to who's equipment to go with, who gets laid off, etc. Actual savings probably won't be seen for several years, but if indeed they do merge, the cost of competition gets a lot cheaper in a hurry.

Re:Huh?

[Miamicanes]

The majority of content is NOT duplicated. Sirius and XM sound NOTHING alike. Sirius channels sound like normal radio stations, but without commercials. XM channels sound like somebody took a random pile of CDs, shoved them in a changer, and hit the "shuffle" button.

They're about as equivalent as Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and Naproxen sodium. Yeah, they're technically all painkillers and reduce fever, but anyone who's ever had a headache or fever knows that they're definitely NOT all the same. Tylenol utterly sucks compared to the other two, but some people are forced to use it because they can't tolerate them. Ibuprofen rocks for headaches, but sucks for fevers (unless you enjoy having your fever come back every 4-6 hours). Naproxen sodium is a godsend for fevers (breaks once, stays that way), but a complete waste of time for headaches. The same is true of Sirius and XM. Both have slightly different audiences with different expectations -- all of whom are going to be FURIOUS if their network mutates into the other. Even slightly.

Talk to anyone who subscribes to either service. I guarantee that 99% of them will react to the news of a merger with absolute horror at the thought that ${their_network} will get turned into ${other_network}. I *guarantee* that if a merger happens and the music channels from one or the other get dropped to "streamline" and "eliminate redundancy", AT LEAST half of the losing service's carriers will leave in disgust. At the same time, the "winner" network will probably lose at least a quarter of its customers if it changes even slightly to be more like the loser's format was. Ultimately, we'll be stuck with one mediocre provider whose financial position is only slightly better than before, and now has hundreds of thousands of angry and pissed off former customers saying bad things about it and discouraging their friends from subscribing.

This is horrible news for the customers of BOTH services. I expect to see an outpouring of anger from customers of BOTH Sirius AND XM demanding that the FCC NOT allow a merged company to own both frequency bands in a desperate effort to derail the whole merger.

Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002.

[WarlockD]

Sorry, I use it ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Ask any trucker if they will part with their Satellite radio.

I drive close to 300 miles a week in the DFW area and local radio stations just don't have enough content to keep me intrested. Except for a few talk shows that I listen to, I need a sat radio to keep sane.

Yes, I do have an ipod loaded to the gills with music, but to be frank, without Satellite, I wouldn't have any NEW content to keep me awake.

More Bandwidth?

[Rudy Rodarte]

As a huge O&A/Ron & Fez fan, I hope that the new company gets rid of some of the redundant stations (do we need 4 Top 20 stations?) and allocate more bandwidth to new stations. Maybe the Hideout boys and Ron & Fez get their own station while The Virus goes 24/7 O&A. Every time Ron and Fez mention "big things" for their show, ELo (Eric Logan) mentions the bandwidth issue.
Also, as a Big XII Alumni (Baylor,) hopefully they'll give us an option to start listening to Sirius content on XM. Oh, and there is that little league called the NFL.
I'm also curious to see how Opie and Anthony live working umnder the same umbrella as Howard Stern. Time will tell.

Re:More Bandwidth?

[speedy1161]

Ramonnnne... mod this parent up and let him into the Big Ass Prize Closet.

L'il Conner gave his mommy an XM for christmas, too bad it don't work under water.

Re:Oligopoly

[cdrudge]

Exactly. Monopolies in and of themselves are not illegal. Antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market, or significantly impair their ability to compete.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[holden caufield]

Or the addition of commercials? I've never subscribed to either, but I thought one of the services still ran commercials (maybe it's Sirius because I think Stern reads them on-air) even though you were paying money for them.

It will be interesting to see if the non-commercial-running service stays that way.

What does "no" really mean?

[Infonaut]

We already covered the FCC saying no. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/2 2/2237249

I was wondering about that too. They either are so desperate for a merger that they'll take their chances with the FCC, or they've already talked with Martin and convinced him that it won't be anticompetitive.

Who knows, they may succeed in framing the competition issue as one applying to the streamed audio market, which encompasses radio, Internet radio, and sat radio. When discussing broadband, the FCC frequently defines the market rather broadly, incorporating dish access into the discussion, as if it is a serious market participant. Given their generally broad interpretation of communications markets, they (or at least Martin, Tate, and McDowell) may buy the argument.

Re:What does "no" really mean?

[skoaldipper]

I think you're right. From the article,

"XM and Sirius have both posted significant financial losses as they built up their programming lineups and recruited subscribers. Both stocks declined more than 40 percent last year on concerns about their continued growth in subscribers and softness in the retail market"

We have seen AT&T emerge in full body once again, acquiring new limbs along the way too (like Cingluar).

I buy their argument that subscription growth has capped. Also, emerging markets like the cell phone adoption of satellite radio place these two in a highly competitive and saturated market. It would be in the FCC's interest to reevaluate their position, as they did with AT&T.

Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002.

[darkwing_bmf]

"...for an additional $20 a month I also get unlimited use of Starbuck's WiFi network, which works great when I am really in the boonies."

Quote of the day.

business model?

[The Only Druid]

The thing everyone forgets is that monopoly isn't the problem: it's the abuse of monopoly to unfairly control a market.

XM and Sirius have so far both struggled for customers for several reasons, not the least of which being problems of customer awareness. Many people simply don't know - and won't learn without extensive research - which network would be better for them (in terms of content, quality and price). People are used to having one radio "network", expecting competitors to just be different channels. The idea of two separate networks with non-interoperable hardware just isn't what people want.

The question is how this new hybrid company (I love the AT&T joke...) will shape its new business model: if no other satellite companies emerge, will they offer channels 'for rent' to other content providers? Will they continue to own all channels? Etc.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[JimDaGeek]

That will happen as soon at the government OKs the deal. The OK happens when some politicians are given brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions. Capitalism at its finest!!!

Radio is a coercive monopoly

[tepples]

Not all monopolies are bad. Some result in the best product, even considering price, for the consumer.

You linked the word "monopolies" to the Wikipedia article "Natural monopoly". I dispute that broadcasting has to be a natural monopoly. In fact, the structure of broadcast licensing in the United States ensures that music radio broadcasting is a coercive monopoly. This is due to the FCC's foot-dragging on low-power FM station licensing, bought and paid for in part by XM investor Clear Channel Communications and by National Public Radio.

Re:Radio is a coercive monopoly

[lc0h0lPr3p]

My town has a low power FM station and I wish it didn't. They play terrible soft jazz, don't provide any way to contact them and don't take requests. Low power FM is going to clutter up a limited spectrum with 1 man ego projects. At least with a commercial station I can request a change of songs or buy it. Low power FM is actually less responsive than the all evil Clearchannel!

Re:Radio is a coercive monopoly

[dgatwood]

Let's be fair. The reasons for those two organizations being against LPFM are very different. Clear Channel doesn't want competition. NPR realizes that the only place where first adjacents are likely to work reliably is in the lower power non-comm band, which means it will disproportionately hurt NPR and its member stations by causing harmful interference. You can't really fault them for that.

The real problem is that the FM band is way too narrow and FM stations use way too wide a band because pure frequency modulation of an analog signal is horribly inefficient. Digital radio hasn't taken off, despite having been proposed over ten years ago, largely due to the fact that there is no incentive for the big radio stations to encourage competition. Similarly, satellite radio hasn't taken off because the bit rate available results in suboptimal sound quality. It uses an omnidirectional antenna, which means that both Siruis and XM share a 50 MHz band, into which they've crammed three hundred digital radio stations.

Humorously, if that same chunk of spectrum were used for traditional FM, assuming you didn't allow second adjacents (and you really shouldn't allow them), you would only have fifty stations in that same chunk of spectrum. However, if you used an uncompressed 16-bit, 48kHz audio signal and modulated it with SSB, even if you couldn't do better than 1 bit per cycle, my quick back-of-a-napkin estimate is that you ought to be able to do it in a less than 120 kHz band (instead of 1 MHz for FM), or about 400 uncompressed channels in that same space---more channels than XM/Sirius, crammed into the same space, and without using lossy compression. So why the heck do we put up with the crap that Sirius/XM are giving us?

I think it boils down to this: people won't stop buying cars if their radio doesn't get any good stations. People will stop buying cell phones if they can't make calls. Therefore, the technology to cram lots of data into narrow bands makes into into cell phones, but not into your crappy car radio. If only the public would vote about radio quality with their dollars when purchasing cars.... Maybe then, we'd have some decent use of our broadcast spectrum. :-)

Re:Radio is a coercive monopoly

[Coffee.RF]

I won't argue the points of spectral efficiency with you as you may have a point, and I don't want to do the math at this time of night :-), but I have to take issue with a couple points;

Firstly, "satellite radio hasn't taken off because the bit rate available results in suboptimal sound quality."
You've got to be kidding? As compared to 'monthly subscription fees' and the need to purchase satellite receivers, you really think sound quality is the deal breaker for the masses??? I would bet that less than 1% of interested consumers even ponder that at the time of purchase... btw & FWIW, I've been a Sirius subscriber for years now, two different cars and three different decks, and in each case the satellite stations sounded much better than regular FM. Not to mention a car is no place for an audiophile...

Secondly; "It uses an omnidirectional antenna, which means that both Siruis and XM share a 50 MHz band, into which they've crammed three hundred digital radio stations."
Maybe I'm missing a leap of logic here, but an omnidirection antenna has absolutely NOTHING to do with the bandwidth allocation or spectral efficiency in this system... (MiMo and Rec Diversity notwithstanding) Maybe that just didn't come out the way you meant it too????

Re:Radio is a coercive monopoly

[Andy Dodd]

"16-bit, 48kHz audio signal and modulated it with SSB, even if you couldn't do better than 1 bit per cycle, my quick back-of-a-napkin estimate is that you ought to be able to do it in a less than 120 kHz band (instead of 1 MHz for FM)"

If you limit yourself to 1 bit/second/Hz, then you get 120 kilobits/second in a 120 kHz channel.

You claim to somehow be able to fit 1.536 megabits/second (16 bits * 48 kHz * 2 channels for stereo) into 120 kHz and yet not exceed 1 bit/second/Hz??? What alternate reality are you living in?

Assuming approximately 3 bits/second/Hz (a realistic example of something achievable with broadcast SNRs - ATSC runs 19.2 megabits/sec over a 6 MHz channel for digital TV), then with a 120 kHz channel you could achieve (approximately) 360 kilobits/second for audio - which is a pretty decent bitrate for audio, but still compressed with lossy compression. I agree - Terrestrial FM needs to go in favor of something more spectrally efficient.

Satellite, on the other hand, is likely limited to only 1 bit/second/Hz or even less or so by the lower SNR - while the sats usually have clear LOS to the user, they ARE 22,000 miles away and have a relatively limited power supply compared to a terrestrial broadcast station that can easily pump out tens of kilowatts (FM) or hundreds (TV).

To be honest, I find the quality of XM to be quite good. If you're listening to XM and the quality is bad, there are a few possibilities:
a) Your connection to your car's audio system is suboptimal. Not many vehicles have aux input, and both FM modulators and tape adapters suck in comparison.
b) Your car's audio system itself is crap. XM sounds like shit in my main car, but that's because EVERYTHING sounds like shit in that car - I need a new headunit.
c) You're listening to their Internet streams, which ARE at an absurdly low bitrate/quality.

Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002.

[failedlogic]

While it seems like a nice solution, your limitation is of the music (content) you "own" and the space avilable on your server. Sirius and XM both offer different types of music, talk radio, sports radio, live music play, etc. I don't subscribe to either service -yet- but this definately appeals to me. I have a CD collection spanning 250+ CDs I've purchased. Its nice to listen to different music. And its cheaper than buying new CDs. Don'tcha think?

Reminds me of the Onion article

[evwah]

All Corporations Merge Into OmniCorp
Saturday, Jan 1, 2000

UNITED NATIONS - In a multimedia press conference held Friday at the U.N., top executives from the world's three remaining corporations announced a final merger, uniting the planet's financial resources under the newly created OmniCorp.

Under the terms of the record $9.2 quadrillion merger, the Global Tetrahedron Conglomerate gains controlling shares of its two final competitors, Time-WarTurABCDis-SonylumbiaAT&T and GM-LockheedZweibSKGBank, creating what company spokespersons called "an unstoppable juggernaut wielding unparalleled wealth and power."

As a cost-saving measure, dealmakers also negotiated the absorption of all world governments into OmniCorp, making the corporate behemoth the sole ruler of mankind.

"We stand at the close of a century of progress and at a dawn of a new millennium," said OmniCorp spokesperson Ed Rohl. "One hundred years ago, the average working Joe was at the mercy of the big corporate trusts. Now, as a new century looms, we can celebrate just how far we have come."

Key members of OmniCorp's board of directors, including Walt Disney, were cryogenically unfrozen and revived by a team of shadow-government technicians. They are expected to assume overlord duties as early as Thursday.

Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002.

[GrayCalx]

Yeah I have to agree with your other replier. Thats great that you don't find a need for satellite radio (I mean it saves you money right?) but others of us have a good need for it. First off the truckers and professional drivers who are looking for consistent radio coverage no matter where they are driving. But ontop of that those of us looking for specific niche channels. Howard Stern fans, Opie and Anthony fans... general sports fans (for instance you can probably get all of your local sports team's games on your local radio, but what if you like a out-of-state team, or you like listening to any game possible). There are comedy channels (24/7 stand-up routines), news channels (CNN, CNN Headline, FoxNews, BBC WorldNews). Satellite really does offer up a lot of options for those not only interested in music.

In terms of music-only listening I think you make a great point, but satellite offers much more than just music.

Re:What changes?

[GrayCalx]

I agree with you. I'm a XM subscriber (because I like Opie and Anthony) but having come FROM a Sirius subscription, I enjoy Sirius' music channels TONS more than what XM offers. Hopefully this is a chance for me to get the music of Sirius with the Talk programming of XM, but we'll see.

I read an article that stated they may be able to offer al la' carte programming where you pick and choose which channels you get. I hope that comes through as well. I'd pick 10 and hopefully pay less... but you know thats not going to happen.

Re:Oligopoly

[morgan_greywolf]

Not all monopolies [wikipedia.org] are bad. Some result in the best product, even considering price, for the consumer. Bill Gates? Is that you?

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[Egonis]

Remember "PayTV"?

Back in the day here in Canada, the first cable companies called their service "PayTV", no commercials.

It was advertised that commercials were necessary for each network to pay for their broadcasting charges in maintaining towers and whatnot.

But soon enough, they saw money.

And the same will happen to Satellite Radio.

Yeah Capitalism

[eno2001]

We now have another monopoly with little chance of any kind of alternative as the barrier to entry is so high. I trust this means that there will be less content available than ever before. You'll only hear what's "popular" (ie. what they want you to buy this week). I'm just waiting for ClearChannel to buy the new company. Fortunately the only experience I've ever had with satellite radio is via DirecTV (another near monopoly that's hard to avoid if your local cable outlet sucks ass). Before they started touting their affiliation with XM, DirecTV used to have some "Digital Radio" channels. They were actually pretty good. Then the XP partnership happened and those channels were replaced with godawful crap.

My wife used to love the 80s music channel they had under the old system. But now they replaced that with "Ethel" or "Fred" or somesuch, and it sucks ass. The selection isn't as good as it used to be. And invariably they wind up throwing in stuff that doesn't even fit. The "80s" channel they have now has a "wider" definition (ie. only what they consider to be 80s instead of what was REALLY definitive 80s) of 80s in that it doesn't just feature punk and new wave stuff like the old one. Now they throw in all sorts of things (some of which aren't even 80s) that are vaguely "alternative" with the occasional crap country song thrown in. My guess is that since country is such a popular format (even though it sucks ass in my opinion) they are hoping that by dropping in an occasional tune, they might get some new buyers from people on the fence.

Yet another annoying factor is that the old system used to tell you on screen what was currently playing and which album it was from. It was very informative. The new system just gives you a little info and 90% of the time it's completely wrong. If that's what XM is like, then they can shove it. I hope they die a spectacular death because music lovers don't want satellite or subscription radio. Music lovers want a smörgåsbord of endless new and old music that is either thrown in as a "freebie" or totally free. And if the selection is varied enough, THEN and ONLY THEN will the music lover plunk down the cash for the goods. That's the way I roll. I listen to college radio and the BBC via the net (and I'm approaching 40) because in many markets it's the only place to hear good new music. If it's good enough, I check and see if eMusic has it and download it. If not, then I get it from Amazon on CD. Satellite radio is only for boring old people who still think Cadillacs are cool looking cars or who think they're being radical when they buy a modern Volkswagen Beetle. LastFM is about the only other option, but I fear that it will be pounced on by the big players and hence ruined once they reach a certain critical mass.

Re:Yeah Capitalism

[TaliesinWI]

My wife used to love the 80s music channel they had under the old system. But now they replaced that with "Ethel" or "Fred" or somesuch, and it sucks ass.

Well, which is it? 80's (channel 8), which plays mostly Top 40 hits from that decade with some deep cuts tossed in, or Fred (channel 44), which is "classic alternative", which is going to play New Wave and some punk, mostly from the 80s, but sometimes possibly a bit earlier and possibly reaching into the early 90s, or Ethel, which is going to play newer versions of what Fred plays? There's also a ton of Top 40 format stuff hiding in the 20s, and any of those might trot out an 80s tune now and again.

Yet another annoying factor is that the old system used to tell you on screen what was currently playing and which album it was from. It was very informative. The new system just gives you a little info and 90% of the time it's completely wrong. If that's what XM is like, then they can shove it.

That's gotta be DirecTV dropping the ball, not XM. I have XM radio, my girlfriend has XM radio, and we both listen to it online, and the artist, song title, and (in online's case) album title is always correct.

We have Dish Network at home, which in addition to keeping its own digital music channels, added Sirius' lineup. I find the jazz lineup a little better on Sirius while my girlfriend likes the alternative lineup on XM a bit better. We picked XM for the car because my Acura came with it standard - something I think is a big limiter in new radio sales - a particular manufacturer signing exclusive deals with one company and not the other, and the retro radio sales just follow along that track. When the lease on my Acura is up, unless I want to pay full price on getting a Sirius subscription, I'm either going to have to buy a model of car with it included or retro an XM radio into it and ignore the Sirius built-in. Why they couldn't stay modular and have either XM or Sirius be an option (like in the Audi/VW world) is beyond me.

I also agree that sat radio's main competition is not from the other company, but from in-car media players. Right now I specifically have not bought an IPod/MP3 player because most of the time I'm listening to music I'm either at home (I have access to CDs) or I'm in the car (and I just turn on my sat radio). If the playlists start getting compromised because they're spending so much money for shock jocks that they can't play a deeper selection of music, then IPods might become a more serious consideration. I spend money for XM every month so I don't have to buy the CDs that I would normally use to make such a varied playlist that I have at my disposal, because at the end of the day an IPod is useless if all you can put on it is the music you've bought and are already sick of, or what's limited to the stuff you can buy on AMS or something similar. Sometimes you just want to get in the car and have music... you don't want to have to skip through a playlist that you put together when you were in an entirely different mood.

A bit worried

[m3gatr0nX]

As a Sirius subscriber, I'm a bit worried what a merger, if approved, might bring. They mention a more a la carte selection of channels. I read this as "tiered" pricing. If I had to guess, it sounds like it will be more modeled after the pay-for-tv pricing...i.e. you get a basic package for x dollars, a premium packages for y dollars, oh and you want the sports package? thats an extra z dollars. If it goes that route, I'm really going to have to reconsider if it is really worth it to me. Overall I've been happy with the Sirius service and choice of programming they've had. All for one price keeps it simple and affordable. Any changes to that, which are bound to happen in a merger like this, chances are the consumer loses.

Re:Finally

[kennygraham]

Art Bell and Howard Stern together.

Art will introduce us to the shadow people, then Stern will ask them to show us their boobs.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[Spritzer]

Both services have commercial-free stations. With XM (my preferred service) the stations actually run by XM are commercial-free. There are plenty of other stations run by outside sources (News, Talk, some music) which have advertising in order to sync properly with their original broadcast source.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[Spritzer]

I love listening to Bill O'Reilly and hearing Viagra commercials every other break.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[DevoPhl]

Sirius went to commercial free music channels rather early on. XM still have a majority of its music channels with limited commericals but dropped them about 2 years ago.

Its clear that XM and Sirius were in competition for a limited market. The iPod in the end was what brought these two together. XM and Sirius had a small window before cars started installing adapters for iPods. Since almost everyone who listens to music has a iPod, it meant that the benefits of satellite radio where lost when you could just plug in your iPod.

Whereas the two radio networks were counting on subscriptions continuing to increase each year for the next 4 years, in reality, they started leveling off this year. And now they have a business model based on a subscription base neither is likely to meet.

As a result, I think we'll see one of two things out of the new company. Either a substantial rate increase or a substantial content decrease. At any rate, its unlikely that the new company will have the variety of content that we see on both today.

Re:Start the death watch!

[can'tthinkofagoodnic]

Gotta disagree--the free 3 months of XM in my car got me hooked, and after I had it for a while my wife *had* to have it. We both have long commutes, and having the selection it offers is well worth the money to us. It's like cable tv--I'm not paying for commercial free so much as paying for selection.

Something I've always wanted to do.

[pseudosero]

Ever since I was a small boy trying to get the FM reception just right, I've always wanted to pay for radio.
Not just listen to advertisements, That's not enough of a contribution.

Oh, and I wanted it to sound like it was in a box, with lots of neat clipping and compression artifacts, instead of free fuzzy fm frequencies.

Yahoo! News doesn't report anything

[Pap22]

Yahoo! News is not a news agency. They have no reporters. They have a license to publish news reported by various news agencies, such as the AP, Reuters, NYT, etc.

This particular article was reported by AP Business (Seth Sutel). The page even has the Associated Press logo at the top right.

Not very difficult.

Re:standards?

[jandrese]

Don't they operate on similar bands though? How hard would it be to build a dual-protocol receiver now that they're merged? I assume the reason it hasn't been done before is because neither company will license their stuff to anybody who builds a dual protocol box.

Re:Why would anyone pay for radio subscription?

[SnapperHead]

Its called, when I get in my car I want to listen to music ... not 47 car commercials, 2 ads for viagra, 6 plugs for the station I am already listening to, and 5 clips from songs that I would rather be listening to.

I have little patience for advertisements. I would rather pay for XM / Sirius then listen to that crap. Not to mention, look at how many more channels you get.

I am gonna take a guess that you either have no or only basic cable. I personally have full cable with 3 premium channels. (too expensive to have all 5) I don't see any difference between getting cable and getting satellite radio.

Yes, most cable channels have advertisements but I spend 80% of my time watching channels that are in HD. (For the most part, HBO, Showtime and Starz)

If I could pay more for cable that doesn't have advertisements, you better believe I would order it right away.

Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002.

[tchdab1]

There will continue to be a market for Sat radio as there continues to be a market for local broadcast radio. Your Tb of home-stored mp3's and movies won't tell you why people are meeting in town to discuss tonight's city council meeting, who died today, the status of rain, or what those fire engines were at 2 in the morning. They won't show you things you don't already know. Sure, you can get those things from the 'net in other ways, but many people like it this way, and the media is flexible to find new folks who like it in a slightly different way that it can accomodate.

Things don't die out as much as they thin out because of increased choices.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[pkbarbiedoll]

Great, so Fred and Fungus (my favorite XM stations) will probably be shitcanned in favor of the inferior counterparts on Sirious. Isn't that how these mergers work? Pay more, get less!

Re:what you brought from home = infinity

[basscomm]

Then you win.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[Frosty Piss]

Since almost everyone who listens to music has a iPod, it meant that the benefits of satellite radio where lost when you could just plug in your iPod.

Really? My life does not revolve around finding new music and programming it into my iPod. I listen to Sat Radio so I don't have to do that. Plus, I get comedy, talk, and a lot of other programming that have no or less ads.

Not all of us are tied to our iPods by our nose.

Re:Gettin' it free!

[Just Some Guy]

Holy crap a revolution! I get my radio for FREEEEEE!

I hate those stupid ads - are they a Clearchannel specialty? - about not paying for something you can get for free. Well, where I live, I have the choice of Clearchannel Pop, CC Rock, CC Country 1-5, and CC "greatest hits of 80s, 90s, and now". So, I opted for Sirius to hear the great stuff I can't hear over the airwaves here.

I'm too cheap to ever pay for anything I could get for free. I don't drink bottled water, but I do pay for satellite radio.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[Mr2001]

For the price of Sirius, I can buy a CD a month. In 4 months, I have a bigger variety then what they play anyhow. If you only listen to one station, maybe. They have something like 75 music channels, though - why are you subscribing if you only like one of them?

I subscribe to Sirius because it takes the work out of finding new music. I can put on a station that I like, tag the songs I especially like, and then every so often, download a track or buy a CD from one of the artists I found.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[Mr2001]

My life does not revolve around finding new music and programming it into my iPod. I listen to Sat Radio so I don't have to do that. Exactly. I had an MP3 player in my car for years before I got Sirius... but listening to the same songs over and over gets old. It's worth $12.95 a month to have someone else pick out music in the genres I like.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[modecx]

I was listening to a religious program about purity when there was an add for an "adult only" vacation.

Somewhat disappointing I must say

You're lucky the ad wasn't for a Mediterranean cruise featuring male prostitutes, methamphetamine, and only the most supple choir/altar boys. After all, we do understand the religious demographic very well, notwithstanding the image they'd rather be associated with.

Guess it was just a matter of time...and space

[PopeRatzo]

3. Satellite has a larger library than you probably have (likely so do the FM stations).

Yes, FM may have a large library, but what good is it if they have unimaginative program directors who maintain limited playlists?

When FM radio abandoned the wonderful idea of letting on-air deejays play whatever the hell they liked, they lost my interest.

I love my mp3 player, but no matter how big the storage, I know what I've got, even with thousands of songs and shuffle. The beauty of radio is that you can be surprised. I would trade the knowledge that I will like everything I'm going to hear for the excitement of the occasional wonderful obscurity or cut from a musician I've never heard before.

Before I grew a wife and daughter, I used to go to sleep with the local "underground"(!) FM station, NPR (when they still played music) or one of the TWO (!) classical stations we used to have here in Chicago playing softly. Once in a while I'd be wakened from a sound, stoned sleep because some stunning, unexpected bit of beauty was coming over the airwaves. Those experiences nurtured a lasting, ever-young love of music and of the unexpected. Even after the underground station morphed into a common "adult-oriented rock" format and one of the two great classical stations went out of business (WNIB) and I grew out of my fascination with cannabis, I will still occasionally give the micro-SD that goes into my mp3 (Sandisk) player to a friend onto which to put something he/she likes. The thrill of hearing something fresh and/or surprising gets my head up even better than the weed used to, with the added benefit of not finding empty ice cream or Entenmann's cartons on the coffee table in the morning.

Oops, I completely forgot

[Andy Dodd]

Where the hell did you get a 1 MHz channel spacing for FM?

The FM broadcast band I know has a 200 kHz channel spacing, admittedly with certain limitations on the geographic locations of transmitters on adjacent channels, but even if you left half of the allocated channels unused, that's a 400 kHz spacing, not 1 MHz.

Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002.

[Andy Dodd]

"Yes, I do have an ipod loaded to the gills with music, but to be frank, without Satellite, I wouldn't have any NEW content to keep me awake."

Exactly. Even a 30 gig MP3 collection can sometimes get boring if there is never anything new added.

How to find new stuff to add? Good question, and in my case, XM is the answer. Usually every time I drive somewhere in my car, by the time I'm home there's something new I want to get.

Which reminds me, I need to hunt a track down. :)

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[BBandCMKRNL]

For the price of Sirius, I can buy a CD a month. In 4 months, I have a bigger variety then what they play anyhow.

Obviously not a recent release.

Then there's the question of how you know what to buy. I live in one of the 10 largest cities in the U.S. and there is no jazz station on the radio. A local college station plays a few hours of jazz a week, but that's it. If I want to hear new jazz, I have two choices:

1) Go to a B&N once a week and rummage through the CDs, looking for new CDs.
2) Buy a subscription to Sirius or XM, which in my case is XM since that's the radio that came standard in my vehicle.

Re:Guess it was just a matter of time...

[BBandCMKRNL]

XM has commercials on all stations.

This is incorrect. XM apparently has commercials on the talk channels. I don't listen to the talk channels, so I can't confirm. XM has no commercials on their own music channels. There are limited commercials on the stations provided by Clear Channel.