Satellite Radio in Fiscal Trouble 326
prostoalex writes "It looks like Sirius Satellite Radio is going through its worse times. From the same article XM Satellite does not seem to be doing well either, even with 200K customers. Will it signify the end of the satellite radio?"
Yeah (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, yeah, I know I'd vote for that.
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Sirius has backing to get them through next year if this happens, whereas a vote against it means they exit in early 2003, which I've never understood. I've seen debtholders refuse to sell or accept a lower price, only to see what they had become utterly worthless because the sum of the assets was worth less than the whole.
Personally, I'd like Sirius to keep going, since I signed up this summer and it's great, I scarcely listen to the local radio stations anymore, since commercial free really does spoil you (with the exception of Sirius' own occasional plugs for what's going on other channels)
With luck, enough new cars will sell to help boost the numbers. I think XM indicated they need 2 million to break even and Sirius about 4 million, but don't quote me on that. It's a lean market and people are pinching pennies.
The real barrier to satellite radio isn't your subscription, it's the cost of the special receiver and antenna, which can be about $300 combined, though I know there's a $75 rebate out there for something from Sirius and/or Kenwood.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a existing XM receiver/antenna/car mount & it pales in comparison to the Delphi SkyFi... Oh & you can get a home audio mount that lets you take the receiver in to your house to use with your home stereo system....
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Personally, radio in my car was just one too many. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Actually, I usually customize the hell out of my stereo and don't buy anything from the dealer. So, I easily spend $1000 on a car stereo, but just don't want the subscription.
Just my 2 cents (which I'll keep, thank you very much).
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
If I was stuck with one subscription, I would put the reciever in the house and use it as a replacement for Napster. Then use the CD's (cutting out songs I don't like) in my in dash MP3 player with ARI. But due to the cost and the down economy, I have opted out. I can get music off a cable system without buying yet another box with a subscription.
The best damned service I've seen in a long time. (Score:5, Informative)
As someone whose has XM I really hope that they pull through. It's one of the best services I've seen in a long time and just about the only way to get some good blues and jazz in your car outside of cd's. I'd pay twice as much for the service just to keep it alive.
Re:The best damned service I've seen in a long tim (Score:5, Funny)
Not wanting to speak on their behalf, but I'm fairly sure that if you offer they'll accept
Re:The best damned service I've seen in a long tim (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry about satellite radio as the providers have some large pockets to draw upon - the auto makers. Next year, GM will offer the service as standard equipment on some of the vehicles - with a free year of service. If only a small percentage renew, then the satellite providers will be listening to satellite disco. If a significant percentage renew, then you are looking at a threat to FM.
On that note, with all these satellite head units running around in the new autos, it would make financial sense to provide some publically funded stations free-of-charge. That would be the largest opportunity.
$0.02
Re:The best damned service I've seen in a long tim (Score:3, Informative)
Um....well, the auto makers may have big pockets, but they have a deal to put receivers in their cars, one assumes they got the year's programming for free, and the receivers at a cheaper rate...not a deal to give XM and all money.
Yes, but there is no money in the short term, or even the medium term. Let's see, starting sometime next year XM gives free service so lots of people with new GM cars. That doesn't cost XM very much money (they might have product support costs, but they should be low, right?). For a year after that they have no extra money from those people. Then, after over a year they can start getting an idea about how many people keep the subscription.
Think about that.
We are still over a year from them getting money from the GM deal, and more importantly over a year from finding out how much money they will get from the GM deal. Do they have money to make it that long without going into bankruptcy?
How does that makes sense (to XM, not the listening public!)? It wouldn't make money for XM, and it would make the XM subscription slightly less valuable in as much as people that like the publicly funded stations would then have something they could listen to "whenever" without paying XM for anything!
Re:The best damned service I've seen in a long tim (Score:2, Informative)
Ssshhh! ;-) But, yeah I agree with you. I have Sirius and 100 channels was a bit overwhelming at first, but now I've grown into it and it's the best thing that ever happened to radio. I really do hope it survives.
In 4 weeks I'll be in the middle of the Mohave Desert, listening to jazz, swing, the BBC, etc. where I got bugger all last year.
Re:The best damned service I've seen in a long tim (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently XM and Sirius are almost exclusively available as high-end aftermarket add-ons. Obviously this isn't conducive to helping the satellite radio companies reach their break-even points (if memory serves me correctly from other articles I've read, the break even point is either 500,000 or 1,000,000 customers).
Sirius is partnered with Ford (Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mazda, Volvo), Audi, BMW, DaimlerChrylser (Mercedes, Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep), and Nissan (Infiniti and Nissan). XM also has an impressive partnership list, including GM and more.
Once these OEMs start selling cars with satellite equipped radios from the showroom, sales are going to skyrocket.
too damn expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Kierthos
Re:too damn expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
But, if we stop listening to FM radio because everything on there is commercial-laden crap, then the terrorists have already won! er, then we're not as exposed to new and upcoming music (XM has a *lot* of indie stuff, as well as stuff that'll never get signed) - I've never heard so much Wilco in one place.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be the case, but it's probably not a good enough biz model to sustain them. What they ought to think about doing is providing a large commercial-laden offering for free, and a "premium" offering for money. That way the business is sustained by a large enough revenue stream (advertising) and those who want the indie stuff can still get it, but it costs them more. 200k customers may seem like a lot, but think about the amount of money they must be paying to run the service.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2)
I have a friend of mine who has it, he seems to like it, but I'm very content with burning CD's off of music that my friends play, if I like it, I rip it.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as the $300 for the receiver, if the satelite providers really had a good understanding of what their target customers *could* be, then they'd do it differently. What they need to recognize is that they can now make nationwide radio stations. Which means that they can market to advertisers nationwide radio coverage. Radio can't say that right now. TV can, and look at how much advertisers are willing to pay for it.
If that's the case, subsidize the radios. Make them for whatever they cost, and sell them for $50. If you sell them cheap enough, everyone will get them. If everyone gets them, then they can market to their real customers: advertisers.
But that's just my $.02. I think the satellite providers are really screwing up their oppurtunity. If only I had a half billion (or so) so that I could start up MJH Sat Radio...
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the concept of a "nationwide radio station." That, in and of itself, would be nice. However, I *STILL* wouldn't pay even $50 with your subsidized receiver to listen to 10 minutes of commercials in a 30 minute bloc of music, if the advertisers catch on like they do in prime-time TV.
200 bucks can get me a internal CD burner (good for other things), a 50 pack of blank CD's, and a internal MP3 car deck. I ow have a few days worth of uninterruptible music, and 49 more CD's to add stuff to, with no additional costs incurred monthly.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2, Informative)
I'm serious. Out of the stations I can receive, I have:
1) Classic rock. Pretty good, but the most recent stuff they play is early-mid 80s.
2) Pop music. Needless to say, I do not care to hear the latest Britney/Christina/N'SYNC/whatever songs.
3) Rap/R&B station. I can listen to this for about 15 minutes usually before hearing yet another artist teaming up with Ja Rule. *click*
4) Classical music. I wouldn't mind this, but at the times I listen to it, they seem to be on a Chopin or Berlioz piece, and again, I can't stand them. (What can I say, I prefer Wagner.)
That's pretty much it. I have friends who will loan me CDs or mix tapes of new stuff, and I will listen to those if I am in the mood for something new.
Kierthos
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2, Informative)
My bad.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Free? Maybe public broadcasting or community radio, but commercial radio? Nothing like hearing your music interupted by ads for zit creme, Bud, soda, etc. Maybe you've gotten accustomed to it, but man, lemme tell ya, it ain't free!
Now imagine what a piss-poor business model selling people TV over a wire and STILL including commercials and THEN charging for premium channels.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
Your time is worth nothing? Mine ain't. If I could be listening to music or news instead of blather about some product or service, buddy, I hit the channel changer. Life's too short to spend listening to commercials, particularly the ones that are annoying.
Not only that, you've freely given brain cells to remember those commercials and be programmed by their messages (Pepsi makes you think young, Doctor Scholl's cures athlete's foot, Gritty Kitty stays crunchy even in milk, etc.)
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good business model when you have things your "competitor" doesn't... like ad-free stations, digital quality, hundreds of stations to choose from, many things you can't normally get in most areas, and the ability to drive for long distances without losing the same station. If I drove more than I do, I'd get XM in an instant.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2)
As it is now, I only listen to Quinn [warroom.com] when I'm driving to work. Other than that, my car came with a six disk changer in the dash.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
Just my personal thoughts. Any comments?
Re:too damn expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
My biggest gripe is that they (presumbably) knew about each other and yet didn't try to make a standard. So for example, my Kenwood head unit is Sirrius ready but if I wanted XM my head unit would not work with it (I'd have to have a seperate display, buttons, etc.). I have yet to see any car radios that support both Sirrius and XM and for me, I'd like to have a choice.
Another gripe is the antennas. Right now (at least for Sirrius) there is mainly just one antenna made by several companies. I'd prefer a little choice here too...like stealth antennas, antennas you could put on the inside of the rear window, etc. I know visibility, etc. is a concern but I think they could solve any issues there.
And speaking of visibility, I wonder how these radios perform in a thunder storm?
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
IMO Sirius got their legs blown off by their late launch. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in bankruptcy inside of 6 months. XM already has the early adopters and continues to gain market share.
My prediction is that when Sirius goes bust that one of the major media players (Clear Channel, AOHell-Time-Warner, etc) will swoop in and buy for pennies on the $. Of course shit-canning the existing stock swapping shenanigan and busting the original investors.
Haven't I read this story before???
Oh yeah... I have XM and love it. Very robust choice of audio entertainment without the hassle of manuevering CDs or MP3s.
Re:too damn expensive (Score:2, Funny)
I dunno... It seems to work for Microsoft.
Less "discretionary" cash to spend? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that if I were concerned about my retirement fund, I'd be cutting back where I could to put more money there.
When this thing came out, many people didn't say "can't" or "shouldn't" when it came to luxury purchases. Now, though, people are keeping their wallets in their pockets a bit more.
Re:Less "discretionary" cash to spend? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of a lot of reasons why it wouldn't be doing so well though... how much does it cost to put a satellite into orbit or "rent" one of the ones already up there? And how much are they charging customers per month for the service?
200,000 customers? In a major metropolitan area, like New York City, one radio station can have that many listeners. It sounds like a lot, but it isn't.
Kierthos
Re:Wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait.... (Score:3, Informative)
To just stay in business (as opposed to saving the shareholders' investments), all the satellite radio companies have to do is cover their operating expenses, although that seems difficult enough so far.
Re:Wait.... (Score:2)
That didn't work out either.
Re:Wait.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Something goes wrong with Z-100's main antenna, they can at least get a technician or twelve physically to the location and start figuring out what went wrong. Something goes wrong with a satellite, and you have to schedule with NASA to get that fixed.
On the plus side, they aren't bound to a specific geographic location. Outside of stations changing their formats and a lot of people finding new radio stations because of that, I daresay a lot (most?) radio stations have fairly stable listener bases. If XM Satellite can stay a going concern long enough, they can continue, even with a slow-growing customer base. But I'd say they need some more customers, fast so they can even have the option of slow growth.
Kierthos
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Costs vs Benefits (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I'm holding off on sat radio until the receivers aren't proprietary.
It was a dumb idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. And when I am in my car, I listen to traffic, weather, or my own music collection or local radio.
3. The exception is long distance trips. Perhaps one multi-hour drive a month.
4. At home, I have a big music collection. Stuff I actually bought over the years. (Don't blame MP3s in my case). I also have digital TV, with it's music channels. Plus a collection of reasonable local radio stations (and many more unreasonable ones)
So! Someone has to remind me why I should spend $$$ for this service. I can see why some people would spring for it. Just not me.
Damn, it's snowing... there goes summer...
Re:It was a dumb idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
2) I have a 30 minute commute, listen to traffic for 5 mins then have 25 more minutes to listen to good (and honest to god) NEW music without having some idiot rattle on and on about what they are playing..
3) Since I'm in the country all my friends live atleast 30 mins to 1 hour away.. not exactly long trips but the XM radio makes them go alot quicker.
4) I have a fairly large music collection myself at home and yes, even some MP3's I downloaded.. Secondly I don't have digital cable because I'm really thinking it's a complete rip off.. Something along the lines of 50 Bucks for the same old crap on normal cable BUT with music channels (I get the music channels on XM for a lot less).
There yah go.. This here hick boy really enjoys listening to the music I want to when I want to.. I can tune in on 3 different types of trance/techno music and also listen to Alternative with a quick flip of the button.. It's all relative and I suggest keeping a slightly more open mind.. never know when you'll get fired and have to move out in the good ol' country...
Digital Radio (Score:5, Funny)
If "clear signal" is one of the key benefits of satelite radio, I would call this a major killer of the industry. Can you say "I-R-I-D-I-U-M"? I plan to be operating XM Radio in 6 months after I pick it up on EBay for $50.
Not the end... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a massive project like Iridium eventually found a buyer. Even if both of these companies go bankrupt it would be an attractive purchase for some investor.
Yeah, whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people spend 99%+ of their time driving within 50 miles of home, where one radio station will cover them. Anyone who's all that picky about what they listen to will probably want to listen to CDs anyway. Personally I'm probably going to get a car MP3 player (I was waiting for an OGG player but I'm tired of waiting).
I spend $120 a year but I send it to public radio.
Re:Yeah, whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummmm, I agree that this whole coast-to-coast coverage thing is completely overrated, but I have a different tack on it. To wit:
Most people spend 99%+ of their time driving within 50 miles of home, where one radio station will cover them. Anyone who's all that picky about what they listen to will probably want to listen to CDs anyway. Personally I'm probably going to get a car MP3 player (I was waiting for an OGG player but I'm tired of waiting).
Yeah - and one of the cool things about going on vacation every year is that I get to listen to all the radio stations from other towns along the way -- It's *great* to hear something different once in a while. I also like to go out to McDonald's for dinner while I'm at the beach - can't get a flavor like that at home!
Seriously, though, it really used to be kinda fun hearing radio from other parts of the universe when driving at night on vacation -- especially sportstalk and talk radio. But that was before the dark times.... before the ClearChannel...
By virtue of the ClearChannel fiat, doesn't broadcast radio enjoy coast-to-coast coverage now?
Re:Yeah, whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of truck drivers have XM... lots of them... In fact the car audio shop in my store has done at least a dozen installs to big rigs over the last year... Yes to some that may not seem like much, but we aren't on any big truck routes so they are mostly going out of their way to get XM radio... Not to mention I've heard more than one truck driver mention that XM is the hottest thign going in the trucking community...
This also benefits people like my parents. My parents have never ever flown on a plane, if they go on vacation it's by car... & it's really hard to find good stations on a trip through multiple states. Especially when going by interstates to your destination because you may only be in range of a station for maybe an hour, probably less. And the incredible load of garbage stations is huge as well.
XM (& Sirrius) provide a way around those problems and the sound quality is better than most radio stations provide as well...
Now onto the 99%+ comment... sure most people may nevego more than 50 miles away from their home towns even, but who says they have good music stations...? My local options are all owned by one company (who in turn are owned by clear channel) & the rock stations are as follows: clasic rock (60-70's), 'modern' rock (80-90's, & top 20 rock tunes only & their are 4 of these stations take your pick), Top 20 station (which plays rap, R&B, & occasionally rock), & one 'soft' rock station that was supposed to be hard rock, but they decided their audience didn't want that... So in case you missed it my radio options suck... I grabbed XM radio the first chance I got, though it's already cheaper now to get it then it was when I bought it over 6 months ago...
I used to do CD's & in fact I created over 50 of them for use in my car... But it got so frickin' repetitive I couldn't take it anymore. Not to mention I can actually hear things I've never heard before on XM (Club music, Electronica, heck christian rock even...) all in high quality sound that is at least the equal of CD's... I thought about getting a car MP3 player, but they are more expensive up front & again I only hear what I have already heard a thousand times... Maybe you can stand that, but I couldn't...
bad business (Score:3, Insightful)
Sat radio is a great idea, and an idea that I have held off embrasing due to too many uncertianties. Why they chose to go with propritary hardware for their services is beyond me. $200-400 for the setup, and if the service goes out of business, you can't just call up the compitition to reprogram the radio.
This can, and should be able to work in the long run; It's just that good of an idea.
Re:bad business (Score:2, Interesting)
Recall, it was another idea conceived while the bubble was growing. Assuming they survive the downturn, and I really do hope they do, they should do fine. Imagine GM, Ford or Chrysler gearing up assembly lines for bigger cars with bigger engines, just as the arab states realized they could gouge for petroleum (~1973) A shock to the system, but it didn't kill them, even while Honda and Toyota were eating their lunch.
Re:bad business (Score:2)
Then there wasn't more later. Most tech startups were like this. They get some money at first, then they expect to get more as they go along. It's just that more isn't always to be had these days.
Post-bubble economic model (Score:3, Funny)
People used to joke that new startups were following the following model:
1) Create a website
2) ?
3) Profit!
But I posit that the today's companies have revised that to:
1) Create something unprofitable
2) Run up massive debt to pay for massive capital costs
3) Declare bankrupcy
4) Profit!
Nope, safe and sound (Score:2)
Check out this article: http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/xsp
What I See Happening... (Score:2, Insightful)
Satellite Radio and XM will basically become options on luxury cars so that those companies can get paid up-front for service. The manufacteurer will then pass off the cost to the consumer, and most likely the monthly fee will disappear. Or, they maybe just make it standard in luxury vehicles. The possabilities for markets for their products are there. I just don't see them using those markets.
What? (Score:2, Funny)
I thought all satellites had radios since sputnik.
Oh wait, you mean satellite RADIO... thats out?
Local Digital Radio will kill Satellite Radio (Score:4, Informative)
Another thing, most people listen to the radio for local weather and traffic conditions. Satellite radio doesn't supple that need.
Here's the AP story:
Digital Radio May Give Shot In Arm To AM, FM
Some Stations Will Broadcast With CD-Quality Sound
A few months from now you'll be able to hear AM and FM broadcasts like you've never heard them before.
Some stations will broadcast digital signals with CD-quality sound.
Dennis Wharton with the industry trade group, the National Association of Broadcasters, said stations are already buying the equipment needed to transmit these signals.
He said it'll mean local radio won't become a second-class communications service. Wharton said digital radio will allow stations to compete on an equal footing with cable and satellite-delivered radio services.
In order to hear digital AM and FM broadcasts, you'll need a special radio. But you'll still be able to hear analog broadcasts on the radios you have now.
yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)
2. You're still limited to the formats of your local stations, which means limited choice and lots of commercials.
The only thing they've added is shitty digital sound... how exactly is that going to kill satellite radio?
Where's the value? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see, no subscription - no wait, I have to pay a per-month fee. Traditional radio is free.
I don't have to listen to ads? No, wait, I am paying for my airtime to listen to people trying to sell me stuff. Same as t-radio.
Quality of music? I must be able to listen to indie artists and hard-to-find cutting edge stuff, right? Gee, that doesn't seem to be the case either.
Static free? Hmm, most of the time my FM is static free, too.
So I'm just not seeing the value of paying $300+ for a receiver and $120/yr for the service. The cost-to-benefit ratio is just to high.
If they got rid of *all* the ads, I would probably do it in a heartbeat. But I'm not paying to have someone push product on me. (Note that I don't have cable TV either...)
Matt
Prudent Fiscal Analysis Says (Score:2)
that it would fail.
Why?
Recall Iridium, the satellite mobile telephone service that failed?
Well, Sirius is only offering to bring audio noise 1-way down from the satellite. No full duplex!
If duplex lost, simplex can't hope to win!
Re:Prudent Fiscal Analysis Says (Score:2)
If duplex lost, simplex can't hope to win!
Nice reasoning. Maybe you missed the point that radio is inherently one way communication!!! Its a broadcast.
Similar reasoning would argue that all broadcast television stations are doomed to failure because they're simplex.
I hate "per-month" charges (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind in the least paying $300 or $400 for a nifty gadget.
I have VERY HIGH SALES RESISTANCE to anything that carries a "monthly" fee for anything. My nifty gadgets OFTEN last for, say, 100 months (a bit over 8 years) and I am quite capable of multiplying a monthly fee by 100.
When I buy a $20,000 car, I'm quite agreeable to considering a $300 or $500 add-on.
But a MONTHLY fee? Forget about it.
Give-away-the-razor-and-make-money-on-the-blade
Perhaps I'm not the only consumer who can multiply by 100 in my head.
You are confused (Score:2)
That's great and all, but this argument does not apply to satellite radio. You are not renting anything. You are paying for a SERVICE.
I pay a guy $20 a month to mow my lawn. I could do it myself for free, but I like the service.
You're right! (Score:2)
Tell me a few things (Score:2)
And what about cable? If I'm out of town for 3 weeks out of the month, I still have to pay full price, even if nobody was watching the TV! It's a rip-off, I tell you!
You're wrong about inkjets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate "per-month" charges (Score:2)
Three for, Four Against (Score:4, Informative)
ok, so XM is expensive, that's true. And all things being equal, it's very tough to make it up on volume when you're loosing money on each transaction. I currently have XM, and to be honest, I don't know if I'd buy it again, but I do love having it
That being said, here are three reasons to get it:
So, reasons not to get it?
Re:Three for, Four Against (Score:2)
/. = slash dot = the website you are currently reading.
I have no excuse. none.Another unnecessary widget (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see them offer programming from other countries. Give me a feed from the Australian Broadcast Company, or the BBC, even plug in the Voice of America stations (if they allow that now) to hear what we're telling other nations about ourselves. Let Grandma listen to radio from the 'old country'. I love listening to radio stations on the net now and I think to have *that* in your car to listen to would be more a great selling point.
Um, BBC World Service *IS* offered. (Score:2, Informative)
As for the others, there's no market -- BBC is the gold standard in (English-language) international news media, everyone else trails behind. And VoA still is not allowed to broadcast to the U.S. -- there's a good reason for that, the government isn't allowed to (overtly) propagandize to U.S. citizens. XM runs several international music channels programmed in non-English languages; I couldn't tell you whether they also contain foreign-language news.
Bankruptcy will wash all of their fiscal sins away (Score:4, Informative)
Remember, in the Satellite world, bankruptcy can be part of the business model!
Good Riddance, I Say (Score:5, Informative)
I bought an XM radio kit with some of my signing bonus last year. Since I was going to commute one hour each way down the interstate, I justified the cost to myself as a nice way to have better programming for my commute. The station guide seemed interesting enough...I could get BBC radio, CNN, CNet, a channel of standup comedy, selections of music that interest me, and so on. The $10 each month seemed very reasonable for commercial-free options that I'd enjoy.
So, I bought the kit and I installed everything as per the manual. I activated my account. I got everything in order. I started listening that night. It was really cool to be able to get a continuous mix of house techno and, with the spin of the dial, CNet news. I loved that, if I wanted a laugh in the morning, I could listen to comedians with talent instead of shock-jocks with carnival barker voices. Everything was all well and good...
And then two weeks went by, and I still couldn't keep a signal over my commute. I also started noting that I couldn't keep a signal in-town all that well. I also made a couple drives through the major metro areas of central Florida and could not keep a signal. This started becoming frustrating. It was about this time, though, that I noticed the programming wasn't all that good. The comedy channels just played the same handful of routines by trite comedians over and over again. The 80's station wasn't really covering what I wanted to hear, either. Slowly, the stations I was enjoying just became boring.
After letting XM take two weeks to try and resolve their issues, I called again, only to be told by the support rep that there were not any such problems and that everything was my fault. I explained my configuration to her and she agreed I hadn't done anything wrong. I told her that XM had been given a month of opportunity to communicate with me and hadn't done so, and so I needed to cancel my account. She then asked me to hold the phone for a minute. When she came back, she reported that there was indeed a problem in my area and, if I could just sit tight a little bit longer, it'd be fixed.
By this point, I'd given XM a month, and I needed to return the radio soon or I wouldn't be able to get a refund from Best Buy. I cancelled my account and took the radio out of my car. I was a little disappointed that I lost my alternative to crappy commercial radio, filled with advertisements, music I hated, shock DJs, and insipid conservative commentary on the news stations. Then I discovered I really rather enjoyed the one alternative I had left- NPR. I started listening to Morning Edition and All Things Considered over my commute, both of which are pleasant and informative shows, and both of which are provided commercial-free.
So, I save my $10 every month and, every third month or so, I use the money to treat myself to a new audiobook or a couple of CDs when I want an alternative to NPR. I really have to say, if you're going to get XM just to have an alternative to standard radio, see if there aren't some local or public stations you like first. Here in Tampa, we have something like two NPR stations and a local, commercial-free station that runs some excellent world news, commentary, and music you'd never find even on XM.
Re:Good Riddance, I Say (Score:5, Insightful)
$120 a year isn't much to most upwardly mobile middle class Americans, and I believe public radio is worth at least that.
I listen almost exclusively to North Dakota Public Radio. Even here in ND the radio market is saturated with Clear Channel crap. I've found NDPR, to be informative, entertaining, and to have regional content that the now Clear Channel stations no longer carry.
Re:Good Riddance, I Say (Score:2)
The joke in the Satellite biz is that XM is a nationwide chain of repeaters with some satellite fill in. There is a lot of truth to this - both of the XM satellites are in equatorial orbits, and so are always fairly low in the South over most of the US - any Southern blockage, and you need a repeater.
XM has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the ground repeaters, and the last time they raised cash, it was to buidl more. It sounds like they have some way to go.
The Sirius system is technically superior, and uses three satellites in inclined orbits, so that one is always high in the sky over the USA.
The good side of this is that blockage is reduced. The bad side is that the satellites move around in the sky, so the blockage will vary as a function of time of day. This leads to a hard juggling act - is it worth putting up a new repeater if the signal is only blocked from 3 to 4 PM ?
Re:Good Riddance, I Say (Score:2)
It's not that I can fault them for their bias; government funding for public media is a lot higher on the Liberal agenda then it is on the Conservative, but there has always been a disingenuity about their news that I found undermined their credibility.
Why pay for advertisement? (Score:2, Insightful)
or have a bake sale? (Score:3, Funny)
Really Unfortunate (Score:2)
Simple economics. They need 400k subscribers on day 1. They need millions of subscribers within a year. They're off by an order of magnitude.
I have first hand knowlege and experience of how these things get off the ground in the first place.
Basically, the marketing is done too much by engineers and scientists.
I contributed to this by co-developing a very sophisticated software application that analysed terrain data from US Geological survey. The results showed that there was a huge potential target market.
You've got scientists on the one end wanting desperately to build a new bird that does what no other bird does. What they have no clue about is how the consumer couldn't give a damn that incredible technology was involved and hundreds of millions spent to bring some sweet sweet sounds to their automobiles.
XM is far simpler than some of the other 2 way projects like Satellite telephones (American Mobile Satellite, dba Motient).
They need to find a way to put a bird up there that not only provides a nice product, it's got to provide a revenue stream in the order of billions.
400,000 subs is only going to get you about $100M per year. You need to start out getting about $1B per year.
I say, follow the successful business model of the Internet. What put Internet commerce on the map? Porn. For some reason, porn enthusiats are very willing paying customers.
More centralized control, less freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
For technical reasons, there are only two satellite radio networks, Sirius and XM. Both have capacity for a lot of channels. The FCC decided to use a "market" approach and allow each company to choose details of its own technology, so their radios are incompatible. Imagine how well TV or FM radio might have done if different stations required different receivers! Consumers are locked in. Sure, it's nice work if you can get it, but consumers aren't quite as dumb as the companies wanted them to be.
Even worse, the duopolists were not charged as common carriers, but as programmers. So XM and Sirius determine what they will carry, and if they don't want something run, it won't run. Sure, they've figured out that they have to offer some kind of musical variety, so they have country & western streams, '70s rock streams, '80s rock streams, sports streams, etc. But the plain fact remains that they control the horizontal, they control the vertical, and a Sirius or XM subscriber won't be exposed to anything that the suits at Sirius or XM don't want them to hear. I guess to them, a stream playing Wilco and an NPR stream are radical enough.
So if this turkey fails, maybe somebody else will try again. If an operator were less greedy, and leased enough channels to independent programmers, then a workable business might be found.
News and Talk Junkies May Like Satellite Radio (Score:3, Interesting)
- BBC World Service
- Fox News
- CNN Headline News
- ABC News and Talk
- The Weather Channel
- CNBC
- CNNfn
- Bloomberg News
- CNET Radio
- C-SPAN Radio
These are services that you can't get on the radio in 99 percent of the country, unless you use satellite radio. How many people will pay for this? Not many, but, this is probably another vertical market similar to over-the-road truckers.I haven't bought an XM receiver because I don't think the service will survive in its present form, and I don't have the disposable income that I had prior to the recession.
I haven't seen this posted elsewhere in this discussion, but an AM radio station in NYC has already brought HD-Radio on-line [wor710.com]. This is interesting because I don't know of any receiver I can buy the handles this service at the moment. If HD-Radio doesn't add to the programming options we receive, however, no consumer will care about it. Then, IMHO, all it will be is a long-term way for the broadcasters to reduce transmission costs.
view from inside mobile electronics (Score:3, Informative)
The real question here seems to be "what is its attraction?" To answer that I'd have to say that most of the hype is more or less true. To compare choice in music between your local FM station and a satellite station, ask yourself what you hear most on your local FM station.
I'll use rock stations as a case study. More than likely there'll be one or two rock stations in your area if you live in a major market. I know in philadelphia the only way I can tell the difference between the two rock stations is by the talk shows that they air. Both stations pretty much play the same set of alternative, a little bit of guns and roses, and then a touch of heavy metal thrown in for good measure.
XM radio has the advantage over this setup simply because one company controls 10 rock stations, so they can coordinate music coverage between the stations and they can specialize in genres of rock. For instance there is one station that only plays alternative, another that plays folk rock, one devoted to heavy metal, and another just for hard rock. There is a channel devoted only to unsigned bands, then another that adopts the format of a university radio station; playing only the newest music and underground rap.
Local radio stations have to compete with each other and they are only given one channel with which to work. Therefore, they will have a tendency to stay in the middle of the road and go with what the focus groups tell them. That's why your local rock station predominantly plays what most people will like. That's why they sound the same.
Thinking about satellite radio in terms of local stations is why many people draw such damning conclusions. Its much more like a webcast: stations thrive on specialization and expert knowledge of a genre.
And as for commercials, you get on average about 1 commercial every 20 minutes. Compare that to 5 in a row every 20 minutes on local radio.
The reason I haven't bought one... (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, you can only get a receiver for your car! Is this really the only place they expect people to listen to the radio? Sony makes a unit for the XM systems that is car removable, but I have been told that is just the headset and the "base unit" which mounts somewhere like under a car seat is separate.
Secondly, they need to come up with something better than "just tear out your factory deck". I LIKE my factory deck, and for those who don't know this already, you get better resale on a car that has the factory deck in it. Tearing out a custom unit when it comes time to sell a car is a pain.
Third, and probably most importantly for the prudent consumer, "Will I make the right choice?" The topic of this thread alone should be enough to convince most that this isn't a device you want to run out and spend $300 on. I want a little bit of a guarantee that my nifty new receiver isn't going to become a useless box less than a year after I buy it because the network is no longer in business.
Which brings me to point four: "Why can't I have a receiver that works on both Sirius and XM?" Yes, I realize they are competing for the same market segment. I DON'T CARE. I am a consumer. I want some guarantee that if Sirius(the network I'd probably choose due to a choice of programming) ends up in bankruptcy court, I want to know I have the option of getting service with XM. These devices are just too much money to be throwing away. And I want one that works in my car as well as my home.
Sirius seems to offer a bit higher quality programming than XM. XM seems like a whole lot of the shit that is on television, only now I can listen to it. I can pretty well guarantee that most consumers who are willing to shell out $10 or more a month for this type of service, which is basically radio(something we're accustomed to getting for free), aren't going to willingly listen to a bunch of damn commercials. This is in fact the reason I would choose Sirius over XM. Because they have NPR. No commercials. I get to listen to the news in peace. Commercials are just plain annoying.
Re:The reason I haven't bought one... (Score:3, Informative)
Sony, Alpine, and Pioneer all make FM-Modulated XM receivers that will work with your factory deck.
Sony makes a home piece for XM. Looks just like the car piece (the overgrown radar detector). $299 MSRP. You can buy a "car kit" for $170 or so that is the FM Modulator. So... $470 for both the home and the car.
I like XM, and I hope it succeeds. Please get your facts straight before howling.
Snowballed... (Score:3, Insightful)
XM Radio customer base (Score:2)
Sirius is great (Score:2, Interesting)
XM versus Sirius (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, XM is a Sony operation through-and-through. The main reason XM is doing so well is that Sony has pumped a bunch of money into it, knowing up front it'll run at a loss for a long time. On the other hand, Sirius is an independent business with all the attendant risks and concerns. Unfortunately Sony is a giant, monopolistic bastard of a company who pimps cheap junk at ridiculous prices, so you can guess which side I root for in this battle. :)
Second, there is the satellite problem. Sirius placed a small number of satellites in very high orbit. This means each satellite can cover a relatively wide portion of the Earth's surface. Also, these satellites are in a more stable orbit so they have a longer life expectancy. Launch costs were higher, however. Conversely, Sony opted for low-orbit satellites. This means the launches were cheaper, but the life expectancy is lower, and each satellite has a much smaller area of coverage, meaning Sony had to use significantly larger numbers of satellites.
Worse yet, the XM satellites are unexpectedly having problems holding their orbit, so they're using fuel at roughly 3X the expected rate. This is one of XM's largest problems. Sony faces having to replace the satellites YEARS earlier than expected. I don't remember the exact figures to replace the satellites, but the price tag was vast -- like $700M or $1B or something equally insane.
Third, there is the ground station plan. Both systems use a network of repeater stations. These (combined with receiver onboard buffering) ensure you have a steady signal when you drive through an underpass, for example. Amazingly, Sony only has 75 repeater stations in the US, all near major cities. The Sirius plan calls for 2,500 repeaters spread somewhat evenly throughout the country. I don't recall how many Sirius currently has, but it's already much more than XM.
Fourth, of course, is the question of content. Sirius costs a bit more than XM, but it's also largely commercial-free. Sony charges you a not insigificant amount for XM, and then they sell advertising on almost all their stations anyway.
Fifth is the availability issue. Since XM is a Sony-funded effort, it was available everywhere almost from Day One. However, Sirius has a ramp-up plan which targets major cities first, then rolls out to everyone else over a 12-18 month period. This may be important to frequent travelers.
Sixth and finally, speaking of frequent travelers, another post pointed out that people like truckers are a prime target market for satellite radio. Interestingly, there is another important target market mentioned in the articles, but overlooked here so far (I think) -- ships. Merchant ships and cruise ships are potentially a HUGE market for satellite radio. It turns out that XM was very heavily focused on land-based use, and their offshore coverage is largely accidental. Because of this (and XM's use of low-orbit small-footprint satellites) XM coverage doesn't extend very far into the ocean. However, Sirius took that market into consideration when they planned their service, and their coverage extends quite far out to sea. Again, unfortunately, I forget the exact numbers, but the difference was serious, like 20 miles compared to 400 miles.
It's my opinion that Sirius is the better technology for these reasons and others (even ignoring my intense dislike for Sony), but we all know how often Joe Sixpack pays attention to little details like that.
Again, that was all from memory based on information I read almost a year ago, so please don't beat me up if I got any of it completely wrong (and please correct me). Hope you found it interesting.
Re:XM versus Sirius (Score:2, Informative)
I think you had something backwards in your post- Sirius has very little need for ground repeaters because of their high-orbit satellites (they also have more satellites than XM). I believe I read that Sirius has 3 high-orbit satellites, while XM only has 2 low-orbit ones. (These are actually operating, I don't know about "spares".) XM NEEDS lots of ground repeaters because their satellite signal comes from low-orbit satellites near the equator and line-of-site isn't very good, especially in cities or mountain areas. Sirius' satellites, on the other hand, are in moving orbits high above the US, and need very few repeaters because at least one satellite normally has line-of-site to pretty much everywhere. Neither service works all that well (or at all) in tunnels or canyons (although Sirius seems to work fine in the mountains of Colorado), but then again- neither does regular FM radio. I've had Sirius for a little over a month, and the only place I have lost signal for more than half a second has been in a downtown Denver parking garage underneath a skyscraper.
I agree- Sirius has better technology. Unfortunately they have to catch up to XM, and as has already been said on
Re:XM versus Sirius (Score:2)
Guess Forbes (or Fortune or whatever it was) was wrong.
They definitely made a big deal out of XM needing more satellites. I wonder if the companies had/have plans to go global maybe?
Satellite = lost cause... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the choise of spending at least $160 for satellite radio, or to just dump a few hundred tracks onto a couple of CD-Rs, I think I know which option most people will go with
Why I don't have satellite radio (Score:2, Funny)
A few other reasons why Satelite Radio will fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Conflicting Standards - It is the norm in the electronics industry to come out with multiple formats in the hope of locking the users into your service. This is true of the Satelite radio services. So, once I buy a radio I am stuck with either the service I originally chose, or a large $500 hockey puck.
Can't Try-Before-Buy - I can't try before I buy, instead I have to shell out 300-500 buck-a-ronis and then pay a monthly fee - all to find out if it is worth having.
Fear of Bankruptcy - Even if I love my new stations, if my particular service goes belly up, my pre-paid time is lost, my radio turns into the hockey puck, and I am out of luck. In this business climate, it is a very real consideration to me.
Fear of Declining service - once they have you, they have you. If they need to actually make money, or failing that, loose less, the first thing to go will be the DJ's. And then all you will hear is the same songs over and over, programmed by Mort (you know, the guy who was once an assistant to the Manager for one of those 80's bands that you kinda recognize their song when it comes on the radio, but never really remember their name.)
Re: (Score:2)
Close Call (Score:3, Interesting)
"What guarantee do you have in writing that, while the stations are currently commercial free, ensures that the stations STAY commercial free?"
This is the response
"We cannot guarantee at this time that we will remain commercial free."
After having a lawyer friend make some calls this was the response
"The commercial free aspect of our service is an introductory program only. We are currently pricing out commercial time and negotiating with prospective sponsors. We do not have any fixed implementation time yet."
Man, what ever happened to false advertising? Serves these shady bastards right for trying to fleece their customers. I feel really bad for all those who did subscribe.
In fact answer me this: Why, if I pay for cable TV, are their commercials? I remember early on that cable was virtually commercial free. I also clearly remember when Showtime, Cinemax, and the Movie Channel had zero commercials (HBO didn't have their own station yet. They were more of a production studio. I remember getting HBO's station when it came out, begging my Mom to get it, for one thing... Fraggle Rock, mmm Doozer sticks.... Ahhh...)
It's kind of like public education, when is enough money enough? Studios keep telling me that it costs too much to make a film. Well first lower salaries... oh wait that solves the problem.
The problem is that the contemporary marketing methods have no concrete, economic validity anymore. They have brushed aside capitalism in exchange for poorly disguised Socialism and we are paying the price. Capitalism is the idea the in economic terms it is survival of the fittest. True Monopolies, Government bailouts, restrictive cost of entry, and plain criminal racketeering have crippled Capitalism and forced people to embrace Socialism thinking it will solve the problem. This is the same mentality the satellite radio producers were thinking.
astroturfing the sky (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in IT at a Fortune 5 company (woohoo). The coffee cabana's here have been littered with guerilla marketing by people paid to seed interest in this technology for several months now. The spam they leave lying around trying to make it look like people are reading about it on their breaks are almost laughable. It is like those people who are paid to hang out in bars with a new mobile phone or wear designer clothes to "advertise" in stealth mode. The ads for XM are misleading and the local interest is fake. BTW, I don't care how they try to skirt around it: the service is NOT commercial free.
standard optionXM and the like have been heavy to push factory installs of these units in demographically selected automobile models. There are groups at the Big Three automakers that are designing marketing plans around these technologies. I imagine it will be along the lines of "first 6 months free!" then you get $10/month'ed to death like every other subscription service that you don't need. The lazy will keep paying it and think they're getting value.
transmission controlI think it is interesting how it is billed as satellite radio when in fact the majority of subscribers will be receiving signal not from the satellites but from the repeater towers they had to erect in the major cities to deal with the signal loss caused by tall buildings. San Francisco, Los Angles, New York, Boston, Chicago... they and more only run on the repeaters. Subscribers of satellite TV can tell you what happens to the signal on a stormy day or even a cloudy day. Ask this to your satellite radio provider: does it come with local channels?
epilogueI've discussed this technology with my family and friends and advised them to avoid it like the plague. I did the same thing when those DivX players came out. It is bad news people. Stay away. Stay far away. Invest your money in public radio.
productivity (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital Radio vs. Satellite Radio (Score:3, Informative)
Satellite radio is appealing to people who live in cities with crappy local radio, or none at all.
It is VERY appealing to people in Clear Channel controlled cities that are sick of listening to the same crappy music over and over again with stupid syndicated drive-time radio shows. It is also appealing to people who are sick of hearing 10-minute blocks of commercials on local radio stations.
It is also VERY appealing to people who live in areas of the country where there is limited or no decent radio service. It is also very appealing to cross-country truck drivers, people with long commutes in areas with bad radio reception, and for recreational use in areas with bad or no radio reception.
All "digital radio" does is allow you to get the same shitty programming in areas that already have decent radio reception, but with much better quality. In other words- digital radio does almost nothing to compete with satellite radio.
All digital radio really does is allow the company that is licensing the technology to make a butt-load of money, while it allows the FCC to drool over the possibility that it can eventually get back radio bandwidth by forcing people to go "digital" in 5-10 years (just like they are trying to do with TV now).
I think in the long run that anything digital is a good idea, and I like the idea of digital radio in the future (although I don't particularly like the current plan for it).
I don't believe that hailing digital radio as a satellite radio killer in the next couple of years and extolling its virtues as a "free" service is valid. One of the biggest advantages to digital service is it can be much more easily controlled by the source than an analog signal. Sure- it's free now because there is no way to control who listens to it. What happens when all radio is digital? Do you honestly think it will be free then? In the mean-time- how do you think all these "free" radio stations are going to pay to upgrade all their equipement for digital service? Yep- more commercials. A lot of people complain that there are more commercials on TV now than ever before- ever wonder why? Sure, we can chalk a lot of it up to greed, but we also have to look at all these TV stations that are now being forced by the FCC to upgrade all their equipement to digital/HDTV.
Too inflexable and impersonal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, commercial-free radio is neat... But some commercials are actually entertaining, Bennigans for example comes to mind. Yesterday, I heard a commercial for Time Warner Roadrunner service and the spokesperson was mouthing modem tones ("I no longer have to hear those bleeep beep blah pbpbpbpbpbpb dialup sounds") - it was hilarious. Do I like all commercials? No, certainly not - but missing the good ones would really suck.
I don't know about XM or Sirus, but the local stations all have DJs that put people from the area on the air to give shout outs, talk about things happening in the area and take requests. I don't care if the actual station is run out of a closet in Bumfsck, Alaska, as long as they're still Central Florida-centric, it seems more "personalized". Stations seem to realize that part of getting people to listen is listener participation. Hell, I've even called in a few times to vote for songs and make requests.
The other major problem with satellite radio is you can only listen to it where the equipment is. Yesterday, I was working on my moped (yes, I have a car too, the moped is NOT the reason for not liking satellite radio) in the garage - there's a boombox in the garage with a FM tuner, a tape player (what the hell are those things again?) and a CD player. I wanted to listen to music and didn't feel like getting up every 74 minutes or so to change CDs - so I put on the radio. If I had a satellite radio service in my car, I'd feel like I'm wasting my money since the majority of the time I listen to music (while working in the garage, mowing the lawn or in front of the computer) I wouldn't be able to use it. If I want to hear high quality commercial free music with just the songs I want - well, I can just bring my hard drive based MP3 player with me...
I haven't seen this much negativity on Slashdot... (Score:4, Interesting)
Satelite radio is too expensive. Says the man next to the $4000 QuakeStation. All kidding aside, there is a wealth of programming on XM and Sirius that isn't available on over-the-air radio. Some of us don't have thousands of dollars invested in music libraries, or we didn't get broadband until Napster was already gone, so we don't have a million CDs and MP3s to entertain us. For some people, the programming is definitely worth the cost. The whole point of the stories is that there might not be enough.
I love XM. XM Classics played a selection from a Swedish composer yesterday that I'd never heard of . Left to just my CDs and Minidiscs, I never would have heard that, nor known that it existed. I can't listen to a simulcast of CNN in Spanish on my way to work without XM. Hell, I can listen to live NASCAR race coverage on XM. I don't own any country CDs, but I can still listen to a ton of different country music. I can listen to the BBC, or CNET Tech Radio.
The variety is *so* worth the cost to me. Maybe its not worth it to you. But please, stop freaking out about it.
Re:I've heard ads for this on the radio (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you guys forget the number of people who drive most of everyday. Think Semi Drivers. Think Delivery Trucks. Think Tow Trucks. A lot of those guys own their own trucks, and travel across 'radio borders'. We all know how limited radio is, and how statios in different cities are all copycats.
Satellite Radio gives you more choice, and you don't have to worry about 'blackout' areas between major cities. I actually listened to AM one morning driving I-65 bewteen Indianapolis and Chicago when I was 18. How many 18 year olds (who don't get their asses kicked) listen to AM radio?
Some places are just that barren.
Re:Don't these guys interfere with WiFI?? (Score:2)