Wondered a bit about this myself - when contacted Neuros reported by email that Delphi (who makes the radio) bought the name from them. Neuros has now renamed their FM modulator gizmo. Quoting the email (which I won't post in whole since I see that as bad karma without permission first):
"No , we sold the name "MyFi" to XM/Delphi. We will now call the MyFi feature "NeuroCast".
Makes sense for Delphi to buy the name - they have spend a lot of money on building the "Fi" brand.
Later there was a class of radios called "Boy radios" from Japan. The US put a high tariff on devices having 3 or more transistors, so the Japanese designed radios using only two. Very clever designs using only 1 transistor to do all the initial amplification and signal detection and then one to amplifiy the signal for a speaker.
Urban legend. It will not work. XM works on a positive authorization that must be received and properly decrypted for your radio. The radio will automatically lock if, after being turned off for six months, it does not receive an authorization with in about 45 minutes of being turned on (its actually a count of the number of blocks of info, but that's close enough).
There has been a great deal of misinformation about XM's authorization and decryption scheme spread about across the Net and places like 2600 (most of which has been laughable). Most of it has been written by people who do not understand the basics of satellite communications and are trying to apply what they know from the computing world. The one way nature of satellite com, without a back channel, means that totally different methods are required.
Secondly, XM learned from DirectTV's troubles - nothing as simple as cloning a EEPROM is going to work. Having the entire system on one chip (which it has been after the first generation of radios), with only an encrypted input and an audio output, with a control channel to change the channel, without access to any intermediate stages, is going to limit your ability to poke the circuit. There are three layers of encryption you have to beat. Hardly worth the effort for a $10 a month service.
I sort of doubt they are going to be able to create that service for the amount you are willing to pay. The rights holders (RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, et al) set the terms to XM on how they can use the songs. Not XM. They are just passing the restrictions along to you, the consumer. XM can't make a leopard lose its spots.
You missed the most important standard. More than 70% of the US currency is used overseas. It cannot change a great deal, as changes like this are how other countries have "devalued" and/or gotten rid of currency hords kept by criminals. The Fed likes people to keep US Dollars, as they make money off of them.
It will be the music plus what non music channels that XM has the rights to stream - mostly that which they create for themselves. The talk and sports type channels pretty much have different deals on the Net already.
Further complicating the deal would be the money owed to the actors in the commericals on these channels. Every media (over the air, satellite, internet, tin cans and string) seems to have a different set of hands out demanding payment.
I am not giving up my PCR for it, that is for sure.
Bingo... and the development community for the PCR does not like it either. Many others have developed the same software. Its been traded around, but no one demanded payment. His application stands of the free work of others who spend hours working out the protocal. They never asked for bucks.
I developed the 2nd optical out for the PCR (and the first practical one using the DIT4096) - and released the schematic free, when I could have copyrighted it. (proof can be found on the threads at XMfan.com). We all worked to open up the PCR - and it irks me not just a little that he had decided to profit from it.
XM for all the abuse it gets had been wonderful about the PCR, and hell, all the other hacks (in the good use of this term) on their equipment. This one has the chance of causing real harm to them, as the RIAA does control them in a signficant way. While the ASCAP and BMI's of the world control one set of rights, without the RIAA's agreement, XM could not play the recordings. You know the CD's? Unlike Broadcast Radio, XM does not have an automatic right to play them (called a mechanical license).
So yes, those of us who have spent alot of time on making this a better service are not happy either. Some have posted in this thread, so they can speak for themselves.
However, the satellite service may be! Two years ago or so, the FCC, satellite services and the radar detector makers came to loggerheads over the signals coming from radar detectors left on in cars in the parking lots. Since these detectors work on a superhetrodyning process, they actually create a small signal of thier own. This signal is allowed to mix with the feed from the outside - if it changes, it means there is a radar source out there.
Now this signal should be small, and more importantly, should not leak from its mixing chamber. However, in some of the crappier detectors some amount of RF was leaking out. This became a problem when it was parked close to one of the VSAT terminals. These offset terminals don't have the best rejection so they would get jammed up with the radar detectors.
Satellite communications depend upon signals almost indetectable from the background noise of space - as we continue to add more RF sources, more unintended consequenses are certain to happen.
I was asking for information about what you were trying to do - to see if some of the systems I have heard of might be a solution or even a work around. Drop me an email address in a message here and we can take it off line.
The other poster in this thread made some great points. When the systems get this big, you build it for failures. They don't have a RAID number high enough to fully express the mechinisms you have to build into the underlying hardware / software that run these applications. When you have 1000's of harddisks spinning, the MTBF numbers mean that you are failing once a week if not once a day. And when you are running systems that must have 6 nines of avalibility, the concept of "backups" just don't apply.
These systems are used by major radio and tv networks and the like, so they are not inexpensive. They are not shrink wrapped software, they are total solutions and a group of applications on a system of hardware. IBM sells a couple of different solutions to the problem, each approaching it in a different way.
I didn't miss the point - I was attempting to apply it to the subject of the post in the first place. A tube has its own compression and usually changes the frequency and phase much more than a transistor amplifier. Its a great tool in the hand of the artist, but one I generally would not want to use over and over as the music gets processed / copied - and thats what an amplifier does. It takes a copy of the sounds and makes them louder. The best are said to be a wire with gain, at least that is often the stated goal. In the radio station that you mentioned, the music has probably been ran thru 10 different amplifer stages by the time it gets transmitted - and the transmitter itself is an amplifier, albeit one with a huge amount of gain.
I have designed and built both types of amplifiers - and as the builder, you get to "voice" the amplifier - each and every one will sound different, how is up to you.
I will stay away from mixed metaphors if you will reconsider your what music and painting do statement. A music recording captures a moment, a singular expression of art. So does a painting. Either artform may change the world, depending on the skill of the artist. The bias you have expressed in the post suggests you look more at art history and look at the troubles artists have created for themselves with thier brush. I am not discounting muscians here at all - but don't cut the picture creators short.
To take your pictures and turn them on thier head...
At its core, music is art - and to put it into perspective, painting is art too. The artist, no matter what technology or method they are using, tube vs. transistor or oil vs. watercolor, is trying to evoke something inside your head. Using a tube to first amplify the instrument is like using watercolors. However, if you wanted to make a copy of the picture, I doubt you would want a watercolor inkjet printer...
Why are you trying to put the "song" into the database? Store it as a file, then put a pointer into your database. Which is how large digital media automation systems do it. I know of some that are more than 40Tbytes of spinning disks and one that will be in excess of 100T. They use an open standard based system
Perhaps I am simplfying it too much? Or are you making it too complicated.
Bashing the one service by a member of the other service is quite like the PC vs. Apple wars of old. Lots of FUD everywhere. Holy War time. Like in the above. So take what you hear about either company with a grain of salt the size of a salt lick.
XM is not a partnership of anyone - GM does own a big chunk (less than 15%), Honda owns almost as much, but the largest shareholder is The Great West funds. CC now technically owns less than 4.9% and is being pushed out as fast as XM can make it happen. There are NO ClearChannel DJ's on XM anymore. They got rid of all of CC's content. XM has an anti-take over provision that would stop any company from taking over XM without the Board's and 75% of the shareholder's approval. Not damn likely to happen
Here is some information to correct the errors in the post above. Both XM and Sirius obtained special temp. liceicens' to broadcast from repeaters - it was understood that they would have to do this when the FCC approved the service in the first place. What was unknown was how many were required and at what power they need to transmit. They do help people recieve the service when blocked from a sky view. While they are small, they are not that small. Most are similar to a cell phone site. (One could not put a transmitter putting out thousands of watts in a building - it would kill everyone in it since the freq. that XM and Sirius transmits is in the same range as a microwave oven.) They are installed outside usually at a cell site since the towers are already built. They did have to follow any local reqs just like a cell company putting another antenna on an existing site.
XM has one premium channel - Playboy. Everything else is in a package. And given the objections to Playboy many would have, it only makes public relation sense to do it that way.
However, as the two companies continue to sign up more expensive content, like Sirius' NFL package, it is likely it will have more add on packages.
The above post is flatly wrong in several areas. First, CC only owns 4.9% of XM technically, but in fact they have sold the stock. They made an agreement with Bear Stearns to "hedge" last year - in effect they sold the stock to BS, and BS will sell them at the end of the agreement when the shares would be no longer a resticted issue
One of the reasons CC (and Direct TV also) have sold out is that XM made a poisin pill that prevents ownership of more than 15% by one company. IF they did buy more, it would given hundreds of millions of free shares to the non-takeover stockholders. So CC cannot gain control of XM. Direct TV, once purchased by Rupert Murdoch sold thier shares for the same reason.
The two companies are almost unlinked, and this will continue over the next year, until XM is not connected to CC in anyway.
I hope this post can correct the common mistake about CC and XM. CC actually owns less than 4.9% of XM at this moment. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, last year they made a deal with Bear Stearns to "sell ahead" those shares. They were resticted and CC could not sell them direct into the market. SO they did a hedging type of agreement that gave CC the money for them now, B%S holds them, and BS will sell them when the agreement expires.
So while in absolute terms CC still owns the shares, they have executed an agreement to sell them. So they gain nothing or lose nothing from what XM does right now or in the future. Directly at least.
Howard Stern mentioned this on his show - he at first believed that CC still had a voice at XM. He later corrected this mis-statement.
(I would beg for mod points to get this up so folks can see it instead of correcting in each of the dozen or so posts that has this wrong. But thats bad form.)
You can sorta do this with XM today, accepting some limitations. First you must get a XM-PCR. This is the XM radio that is controlled by a computer. It does not use the internet in anyway - it just uses the computer (or other device) to serve as its "buttons."
Now go to XMFAN.com and download one of the third party software packages. They are available in Windows, MAC and flavors of Linux. Or you can roll your own. XM has been great about allowing third parties to reverse engineer the API and basically alter your kit like you want. I added a digital output to mine. As long as you aren't stealing from them, they are hands off.
You will have to do some prodding to get it exactly the way you want - but having your computer change the channel, start recording the program you want, stop the recording, change channel, ad nausum, has already been done.
I am afraid the bad guys thought of it first. In order for Tivo solution to work, you need a schedule of when things are playing. Sounds simple since almost all radio programs are created ahead of time on computers nowdays anyhow.
But the bad guys already thought of that... thus the rules against pre-announcing songs on the Internet Radio stations and the SDARs. Its basically against the law to tell anyone what you will be playing in the future, so no one could create a schedule, other than a listing of the program itself.
My friend that has a Clarion joyride and it's 12 disc DVD changer can play DVD discs full of mp3's and pretty much has more music in it than XM or Sirius can ever have, at audio quality that make both look downright silly.
Since XM has more than 2 million songs stored in its databases, I rather doubt that you could carry that much around, no matter how good your compression scheme. They have several large databases, the largest of which is 28TB, spinning hard disks.... And they plan to increase this substantially. Their setup would make your average geek drool. Every studio or workstation has access to every one of the song titles, even if you are in one of the remote studios in New York or Nashville.
More to your point, I own a little over 1400 CDs and I still subscribe to XM. WHY? Because I can never own all of them, nor do I have time to audition every new one that comes out. XM's folks do listen to all of them - and the good ones get airplay. Even the ones not signed by a label. It seems to me I have more control than I have ever had before - I am exposed to a very wide varity that I have never heard before.
XM wants to have less too.. that is pretty clear. XM no longer carries any rebroadcasts of Clear Channel stations. When XM first went on air, they did rebroadcast several CC stations. As of this Novemeber when KISS was dropped, there is ZERO CC in the channel listing.
As for the ownership, at one time, CC had almost 9% ownership of the stock. In July, CC executed a hedge agreement to sell *all* of their shares to Bear Sterns, who would in turn tell them to the market. Without regard to this agreement, CC has not participated in any of the recent financings and thus thier ownership percentage has fell below 5%. The board seat that CC controls will be turned back at the next annual meeting when it expires. Clear Channel has no control or influence in this company as of now, other than as a vendor/supplier for each others services.
So from an ownership issue - CC is at best an old story. What should be recognized about both companies is that they are controlled by institution owners. When the first customer costs 1.5 billion dollars in expenses, it pretty much has to be that way.
When XM first started up, they rebroadcast several CC stations. This had some merit since it was a place for "new" subscribers to go to something they are used to hearing. They sounded bad, in most opinions, and they are now all gone as of November.
There is nothing currently restricting any content, and there will not be... that would be a free speach issue. What does is exist is an agreement that XM or Sirius will not use the local repeaters as "mini" stations and broadcast a local channel. The current broadcast monopolies don't want to compete any more than they have to - they paid billions in payment and millions in bribes in order to amass the thousands of stations they own. So they use NAB to hide behind. Its not just the CC and Viacom that are at issue here. Its the one station in a town does want anyone taking money that they see as theirs. (See low power FM for another great example).
The rules are by agreement - and are expected to be put into place permanently when the FCC gives the SDARs final approval on the repeaters.
Clear Channel is FUD spouted by Sirius advocates. First and formost, everyone has to understand that this is like PC vs Mac for users. The vast majority of users of satellite radio are *strong* advocates - XM has a study that shows that subscribers on average demonstrate thier radio more than 10 times a month to other people. So take what you hear about either service, good or bad, with a grain of salt.
CC used to own stock of less than 10% in XM. Its now less than 5% and they have sold the rest in a hedge deal. I think it is pretty clear that XM wants to get rid of CC as soon as they can - which is why there are no longer any CC sourced channels on XM.
The signal to noise ratio of your post is near zero. Simply all wrong. All of the "channels" are multiplexed together without regard to "strenth". What may vary is the bit rate assigned to the stream. Talk channels will need, and get, less bits than a music channel. LA Kiss *was* a lower quality channel because it *was* repurposed material from the LA station. This was recently changed to in-house production so the quality of Channel 21 should be the same as 20.
Many Sirius users have complained about the lower quality of talk channels. This is most likely due to PAC's abilities with low bit rate streams. They are not as good as AAC, thus the replacement of PAC in terrestrial Digital Radio (IBOC, HD Radio, Ibuiquity are a couple of its names). They changed over to a form of AAC. Sirius has not done so, although they recognize the issue and are working on it.
Finally, XM is not owned by Clear Channel. That is FUD at it worse. What is true is that CC made an investment in XM of around 9% at one time. These shares have been hedged and effectivly sold. CC did not participate in the last round of financing and their stock ownership has now fell below 5%. They will lose thier board seat when it expires.. The net result of all of this is that CC will end up with *no* ownership interests in any manner in XM next year.
But, hey, I know its easy to bash XM with CC than it is to tell the whole truth.
Yes do experiment. Your next step should be to try XM. Your case is one of the many that show the real difference between the companies. XM works better at home reception since its satellite's *don't* move across the sky. Secondly, XM puts out a much higher power signal. It has more repeaters. All of these were considered a negative for car use but turned out to be a big win when it comes to home or work use. I get my signal for my PCR from an indoor antenna that is 20 feet from a north facing window. Many people don't even have a window - XM's signal can go thru a wooden roof like that is common on a single family home.
So the real point is... if one service does not work for you, try the other. There are enough differences that it just might do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wondered a bit about this myself - when contacted Neuros reported by email that Delphi (who makes the radio) bought the name from them. Neuros has now renamed their FM modulator gizmo. Quoting the email (which I won't post in whole since I see that as bad karma without permission first):
"No , we sold the name "MyFi" to XM/Delphi. We will now call the MyFi feature "NeuroCast".
Makes sense for Delphi to buy the name - they have spend a lot of money on building the "Fi" brand.
Later there was a class of radios called "Boy radios" from Japan. The US put a high tariff on devices having 3 or more transistors, so the Japanese designed radios using only two. Very clever designs using only 1 transistor to do all the initial amplification and signal detection and then one to amplifiy the signal for a speaker.
Urban legend. It will not work. XM works on a positive authorization that must be received and properly decrypted for your radio. The radio will automatically lock if, after being turned off for six months, it does not receive an authorization with in about 45 minutes of being turned on (its actually a count of the number of blocks of info, but that's close enough).
There has been a great deal of misinformation about XM's authorization and decryption scheme spread about across the Net and places like 2600 (most of which has been laughable). Most of it has been written by people who do not understand the basics of satellite communications and are trying to apply what they know from the computing world. The one way nature of satellite com, without a back channel, means that totally different methods are required.
Secondly, XM learned from DirectTV's troubles - nothing as simple as cloning a EEPROM is going to work. Having the entire system on one chip (which it has been after the first generation of radios), with only an encrypted input and an audio output, with a control channel to change the channel, without access to any intermediate stages, is going to limit your ability to poke the circuit. There are three layers of encryption you have to beat. Hardly worth the effort for a $10 a month service.
I sort of doubt they are going to be able to create that service for the amount you are willing to pay. The rights holders (RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, et al) set the terms to XM on how they can use the songs. Not XM. They are just passing the restrictions along to you, the consumer. XM can't make a leopard lose its spots.
You missed the most important standard. More than 70% of the US currency is used overseas. It cannot change a great deal, as changes like this are how other countries have "devalued" and/or gotten rid of currency hords kept by criminals. The Fed likes people to keep US Dollars, as they make money off of them.
It will be the music plus what non music channels that XM has the rights to stream - mostly that which they create for themselves. The talk and sports type channels pretty much have different deals on the Net already.
Further complicating the deal would be the money owed to the actors in the commericals on these channels. Every media (over the air, satellite, internet, tin cans and string) seems to have a different set of hands out demanding payment.
I am not giving up my PCR for it, that is for sure.
Bingo... and the development community for the PCR does not like it either. Many others have developed the same software. Its been traded around, but no one demanded payment. His application stands of the free work of others who spend hours working out the protocal. They never asked for bucks.
I developed the 2nd optical out for the PCR (and the first practical one using the DIT4096) - and released the schematic free, when I could have copyrighted it. (proof can be found on the threads at XMfan.com). We all worked to open up the PCR - and it irks me not just a little that he had decided to profit from it.
XM for all the abuse it gets had been wonderful about the PCR, and hell, all the other hacks (in the good use of this term) on their equipment. This one has the chance of causing real harm to them, as the RIAA does control them in a signficant way. While the ASCAP and BMI's of the world control one set of rights, without the RIAA's agreement, XM could not play the recordings. You know the CD's? Unlike Broadcast Radio, XM does not have an automatic right to play them (called a mechanical license).
So yes, those of us who have spent alot of time on making this a better service are not happy either. Some have posted in this thread, so they can speak for themselves.
However, the satellite service may be! Two years ago or so, the FCC, satellite services and the radar detector makers came to loggerheads over the signals coming from radar detectors left on in cars in the parking lots. Since these detectors work on a superhetrodyning process, they actually create a small signal of thier own. This signal is allowed to mix with the feed from the outside - if it changes, it means there is a radar source out there.
Now this signal should be small, and more importantly, should not leak from its mixing chamber. However, in some of the crappier detectors some amount of RF was leaking out. This became a problem when it was parked close to one of the VSAT terminals. These offset terminals don't have the best rejection so they would get jammed up with the radar detectors.
Satellite communications depend upon signals almost indetectable from the background noise of space - as we continue to add more RF sources, more unintended consequenses are certain to happen.
I was asking for information about what you were trying to do - to see if some of the systems I have heard of might be a solution or even a work around. Drop me an email address in a message here and we can take it off line.
The other poster in this thread made some great points. When the systems get this big, you build it for failures. They don't have a RAID number high enough to fully express the mechinisms you have to build into the underlying hardware / software that run these applications. When you have 1000's of harddisks spinning, the MTBF numbers mean that you are failing once a week if not once a day. And when you are running systems that must have 6 nines of avalibility, the concept of "backups" just don't apply.
These systems are used by major radio and tv networks and the like, so they are not inexpensive. They are not shrink wrapped software, they are total solutions and a group of applications on a system of hardware. IBM sells a couple of different solutions to the problem, each approaching it in a different way.
I didn't miss the point - I was attempting to apply it to the subject of the post in the first place. A tube has its own compression and usually changes the frequency and phase much more than a transistor amplifier. Its a great tool in the hand of the artist, but one I generally would not want to use over and over as the music gets processed / copied - and thats what an amplifier does. It takes a copy of the sounds and makes them louder. The best are said to be a wire with gain, at least that is often the stated goal. In the radio station that you mentioned, the music has probably been ran thru 10 different amplifer stages by the time it gets transmitted - and the transmitter itself is an amplifier, albeit one with a huge amount of gain. I have designed and built both types of amplifiers - and as the builder, you get to "voice" the amplifier - each and every one will sound different, how is up to you. I will stay away from mixed metaphors if you will reconsider your what music and painting do statement. A music recording captures a moment, a singular expression of art. So does a painting. Either artform may change the world, depending on the skill of the artist. The bias you have expressed in the post suggests you look more at art history and look at the troubles artists have created for themselves with thier brush. I am not discounting muscians here at all - but don't cut the picture creators short.
To take your pictures and turn them on thier head...
At its core, music is art - and to put it into perspective, painting is art too. The artist, no matter what technology or method they are using, tube vs. transistor or oil vs. watercolor, is trying to evoke something inside your head. Using a tube to first amplify the instrument is like using watercolors. However, if you wanted to make a copy of the picture, I doubt you would want a watercolor inkjet printer...
Why are you trying to put the "song" into the database? Store it as a file, then put a pointer into your database. Which is how large digital media automation systems do it. I know of some that are more than 40Tbytes of spinning disks and one that will be in excess of 100T. They use an open standard based system
Perhaps I am simplfying it too much? Or are you making it too complicated.
XM is not a partnership of anyone - GM does own a big chunk (less than 15%), Honda owns almost as much, but the largest shareholder is The Great West funds. CC now technically owns less than 4.9% and is being pushed out as fast as XM can make it happen. There are NO ClearChannel DJ's on XM anymore. They got rid of all of CC's content. XM has an anti-take over provision that would stop any company from taking over XM without the Board's and 75% of the shareholder's approval. Not damn likely to happen
So pretty much, all of the above post is wrong.
However, as the two companies continue to sign up more expensive content, like Sirius' NFL package, it is likely it will have more add on packages.
One of the reasons CC (and Direct TV also) have sold out is that XM made a poisin pill that prevents ownership of more than 15% by one company. IF they did buy more, it would given hundreds of millions of free shares to the non-takeover stockholders. So CC cannot gain control of XM. Direct TV, once purchased by Rupert Murdoch sold thier shares for the same reason.
The two companies are almost unlinked, and this will continue over the next year, until XM is not connected to CC in anyway.
I hope this post can correct the common mistake about CC and XM. CC actually owns less than 4.9% of XM at this moment. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, last year they made a deal with Bear Stearns to "sell ahead" those shares. They were resticted and CC could not sell them direct into the market. SO they did a hedging type of agreement that gave CC the money for them now, B%S holds them, and BS will sell them when the agreement expires. So while in absolute terms CC still owns the shares, they have executed an agreement to sell them. So they gain nothing or lose nothing from what XM does right now or in the future. Directly at least. Howard Stern mentioned this on his show - he at first believed that CC still had a voice at XM. He later corrected this mis-statement. (I would beg for mod points to get this up so folks can see it instead of correcting in each of the dozen or so posts that has this wrong. But thats bad form.)
Now go to XMFAN.com and download one of the third party software packages. They are available in Windows, MAC and flavors of Linux. Or you can roll your own. XM has been great about allowing third parties to reverse engineer the API and basically alter your kit like you want. I added a digital output to mine. As long as you aren't stealing from them, they are hands off.
You will have to do some prodding to get it exactly the way you want - but having your computer change the channel, start recording the program you want, stop the recording, change channel, ad nausum, has already been done.
I am afraid the bad guys thought of it first. In order for Tivo solution to work, you need a schedule of when things are playing. Sounds simple since almost all radio programs are created ahead of time on computers nowdays anyhow. But the bad guys already thought of that... thus the rules against pre-announcing songs on the Internet Radio stations and the SDARs. Its basically against the law to tell anyone what you will be playing in the future, so no one could create a schedule, other than a listing of the program itself.
Since XM has more than 2 million songs stored in its databases, I rather doubt that you could carry that much around, no matter how good your compression scheme. They have several large databases, the largest of which is 28TB, spinning hard disks.... And they plan to increase this substantially. Their setup would make your average geek drool. Every studio or workstation has access to every one of the song titles, even if you are in one of the remote studios in New York or Nashville.
More to your point, I own a little over 1400 CDs and I still subscribe to XM. WHY? Because I can never own all of them, nor do I have time to audition every new one that comes out. XM's folks do listen to all of them - and the good ones get airplay. Even the ones not signed by a label. It seems to me I have more control than I have ever had before - I am exposed to a very wide varity that I have never heard before.
XM wants to have less too.. that is pretty clear. XM no longer carries any rebroadcasts of Clear Channel stations. When XM first went on air, they did rebroadcast several CC stations. As of this Novemeber when KISS was dropped, there is ZERO CC in the channel listing. As for the ownership, at one time, CC had almost 9% ownership of the stock. In July, CC executed a hedge agreement to sell *all* of their shares to Bear Sterns, who would in turn tell them to the market. Without regard to this agreement, CC has not participated in any of the recent financings and thus thier ownership percentage has fell below 5%. The board seat that CC controls will be turned back at the next annual meeting when it expires. Clear Channel has no control or influence in this company as of now, other than as a vendor/supplier for each others services. So from an ownership issue - CC is at best an old story. What should be recognized about both companies is that they are controlled by institution owners. When the first customer costs 1.5 billion dollars in expenses, it pretty much has to be that way.
When XM first started up, they rebroadcast several CC stations. This had some merit since it was a place for "new" subscribers to go to something they are used to hearing. They sounded bad, in most opinions, and they are now all gone as of November.
There is nothing currently restricting any content, and there will not be... that would be a free speach issue. What does is exist is an agreement that XM or Sirius will not use the local repeaters as "mini" stations and broadcast a local channel. The current broadcast monopolies don't want to compete any more than they have to - they paid billions in payment and millions in bribes in order to amass the thousands of stations they own. So they use NAB to hide behind. Its not just the CC and Viacom that are at issue here. Its the one station in a town does want anyone taking money that they see as theirs. (See low power FM for another great example).
The rules are by agreement - and are expected to be put into place permanently when the FCC gives the SDARs final approval on the repeaters.
Clear Channel is FUD spouted by Sirius advocates. First and formost, everyone has to understand that this is like PC vs Mac for users. The vast majority of users of satellite radio are *strong* advocates - XM has a study that shows that subscribers on average demonstrate thier radio more than 10 times a month to other people. So take what you hear about either service, good or bad, with a grain of salt. CC used to own stock of less than 10% in XM. Its now less than 5% and they have sold the rest in a hedge deal. I think it is pretty clear that XM wants to get rid of CC as soon as they can - which is why there are no longer any CC sourced channels on XM.
The signal to noise ratio of your post is near zero. Simply all wrong. All of the "channels" are multiplexed together without regard to "strenth". What may vary is the bit rate assigned to the stream. Talk channels will need, and get, less bits than a music channel. LA Kiss *was* a lower quality channel because it *was* repurposed material from the LA station. This was recently changed to in-house production so the quality of Channel 21 should be the same as 20. Many Sirius users have complained about the lower quality of talk channels. This is most likely due to PAC's abilities with low bit rate streams. They are not as good as AAC, thus the replacement of PAC in terrestrial Digital Radio (IBOC, HD Radio, Ibuiquity are a couple of its names). They changed over to a form of AAC. Sirius has not done so, although they recognize the issue and are working on it. Finally, XM is not owned by Clear Channel. That is FUD at it worse. What is true is that CC made an investment in XM of around 9% at one time. These shares have been hedged and effectivly sold. CC did not participate in the last round of financing and their stock ownership has now fell below 5%. They will lose thier board seat when it expires.. The net result of all of this is that CC will end up with *no* ownership interests in any manner in XM next year. But, hey, I know its easy to bash XM with CC than it is to tell the whole truth.
Yes do experiment. Your next step should be to try XM. Your case is one of the many that show the real difference between the companies. XM works better at home reception since its satellite's *don't* move across the sky. Secondly, XM puts out a much higher power signal. It has more repeaters. All of these were considered a negative for car use but turned out to be a big win when it comes to home or work use. I get my signal for my PCR from an indoor antenna that is 20 feet from a north facing window. Many people don't even have a window - XM's signal can go thru a wooden roof like that is common on a single family home. So the real point is... if one service does not work for you, try the other. There are enough differences that it just might do it.