http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/ Engadget Comments for Sirius, XM receivers may play both sides http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 2:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 4:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 2:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 10:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
]]>Jul 8th 2007 3:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 3:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
Right now, consumers have 2 choices for satellite radio. If Sirius and XM merge, then there only be 1 choice. That's a MONOPOLY. When the FCC granted licenses to Sirius and XM in 1997, one of the conditions was that they cannot merge. Period.

What's *REALLY* going on here is:
1. Sirius and XM have spent money in a way that would appall drunken sailors. As a result they are losing huge amounts of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Now they need a way out of their self-created mess.

2. If they can merge, Sirius gets all the revenue from XM's subscribers. It might even be enough to make them profitable. Of course, if you work for XM, you can probably kiss your job goodbye. Sirius will have to slash XM to the bare bone in order for their revenue to offset the $600 million that Sirius lost last year.

3. Sirius CEO Mel Karmezin has said that the merger will allow them to sell more advertising. Great, more commercials. Isn't that wonderful.

4. Once the merger goes thru, they can try to sell everyone a new radio that can get both signals.

5. They cannot merge. That was a condition of getting a license in the first place. End of story.



]]>Jul 8th 2007 7:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
As far as the FCC goes. That may be true but it doesn't make it right. And ask our government, that as time goes, you can change laws. Like for instance, you can shred the Bill of Rights and replace it w/ the Patriot Act.

Fred is secretly plotting w/ the NAB. In return they give him the answers to the Gossip Game. Shame Fred.

]]>Jul 8th 2007 11:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
As for the radios, the hardware guys make money selling those things but do SIrius and XM actually make anything on the sales of hardware beyond some token licensing fee?...Given the fixed costs of the biz, I suspect Sirius and XM much rather sell a new subscription than a new radio.]]>Jul 8th 2007 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
"1. Sirius and XM have spent money in a way that would appall drunken sailors. As a result they are losing huge amounts of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Now they need a way out of their self-created mess."

Money that needed to be spent in order to bring in subscribers. Money, mind you, that was spent competing against each other and broadcast radio. Without spending it, less subscribers = less revenue. XM sold a lot of subscriptions grabbing up O&A and the Money Sirius spent on Howard was made back in subscriptions in 5 months.

"2. If they can merge, Sirius gets all the revenue from XM's subscribers. It might even be enough to make them profitable. Of course, if you work for XM, you can probably kiss your job goodbye. Sirius will have to slash XM to the bare bone in order for their revenue to offset the $600 million that Sirius lost last year."

If anything they will remove the redundancies of both stations respective music, such as 50's, 60's, 70's etc.

"3. Sirius CEO Mel Karmezin has said that the merger will allow them to sell more advertising. Great, more commercials. Isn't that wonderful."

The talk and news programs always had commercials. He is not talking about the music stations.

"4. Once the merger goes thru, they can try to sell everyone a new radio that can get both signals."

Speculation. I have not seen it mentioned whether or not the radios already sold will be able to get both or not. I believe they will, simply because of the large amount of radios sold in new cars. It would be a foolish business move to make people remove their factory satellite radios. They will most likely just broadcast the same channels over both networks.

"5. They cannot merge. That was a condition of getting a license in the first place. End of story."

Hardly end of story. It was not a law but an FCC requirement. A requirement that the FCC can remove at will. Sirius and XM are not fighting this in court. They are going through the system to get FCC approval. ]]>Jul 8th 2007 6:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
Actually I did. Stern was paid $500 mil for the entire show(his salary as well as everyone else working there) for 5 years. Sirius had just under a million subscribers just before he officially announced he was heading over there. Within 2 months Sirius was over 1.5 million subscribers. In January of this year Stern was paid a stock bonus of $82.9 mil for incentives for getting Sirius to 6 million subscribers. The cost of getting Stern was paid back to Sirius in 7 and a half months.

Sirius may be in the red, but it certainly wasn't because of signing Howard. If anything, getting him has given them the leverage they needed to merge with XM. Without that, Sirius may have been dead and buried a while ago and we would have a "monopoly" by default.



I'd like to ask all those who think a merger will raise prices, what do you think will happen to prices if a merger fails and both these companies need to increase revenues?]]>Jul 8th 2007 7:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
And you might want to double check your math...I'll be generous and say that each Sirius customer pays 12.95 a month, even though those on annual contracts pay less and not an insignificant portion are paying zero.

Total five year cost for Howard $582,900,000 (so far)

$582,900,000/12.95=45,011,583 Number of months of $12.95 customer revenue needed to pay Howard

45,011,583/12=3,750,965 Number of customers needed to pay 12.95 FOR A YEAR to pay Howard.

Granted there is some advertising revenue, but I doubt that it completely offsets any of the operating expenses, bad debt, customer service costs and other overhead expenses...and as I said before, Sirius makes less than 12.95 per month per customer on average...So if you work those customer months back in Sirius' overall growth, you find that Howard cost Sirius more than 1 year of all its gross subscriber revenue during his 5 year contract...how much more than a year, I can't be bother to work out.

IF one them goes out of business, someone will step in, buy the license / satellite, terminate the stupid costly contracts, and offer 92% of what they offer now at $6 a month/49.99 year, actually release some units designed for the home first and not $40 extra for AC cord and plastic frame add on for a car model...(newsflash to XM/Sirius, most us do not spend our lives in cars) and laugh all the way to the bank


]]>Jul 9th 2007 3:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/

So now let's do the math again.

5 million new subscribers at $12.95 =$64,750,000

Howards 5 year contract = 500,000,000

500,000,000 divided by 64,750,000 = 7.72 months.

Even using your own figures, Howard has been on the air longer than a year and there has been no decrease in subscribers, but rather an increase since his bonus, so your point is moot. He is bought and paid for. Any losses that Sirius has had cannot be attributed to this contract. It most likely is a result of advertising, automaker discounts and other factors.]]>Jul 9th 2007 7:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
Plus the 500,000,000 went for the show budget too.

And f*ck the NAB. ]]>Jul 9th 2007 10:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/pressrel/releases/2006_Sirius_10K.pdf

And I can see the world of hurt you are in if you are taking what Mel says at face value....Since howard came on board in 2005, Sirius has lost 1.4 million subscribers (page 32)...so of all those people Howard brought, how many actually stuck around? And Sirius has added 1.7 million OEM customers during that period....Did Howard cause 1.7 million people to buy new cars with Sirius subscription built into the car's price? And stock grants are stocks that could have been sold to the public for cash, so don't think they are not "real" expenses....the SEC thinks they are.

page 32
"ARPU. Total ARPU for the year ended December 31, 2006 was $11.01, up from $10.34 for the year ended December 31, 2005. This increase in ARPU was driven by higher net advertising revenue; the effects of mail-in rebates resulting from lower eligible activations and lower overall take rates; and the timing of the commencement of revenue recognition for prepaid subscriptions; offset by the impact of plan mix due in part to the increase in subscribers under multi-unit subscription plans. At December 31, 2006, approximately two-thirds of our subscribers were on a one-year or longer subscription plan, and approximately 16% were paying $6.99 per month under a multi-unit subscription plan."

Tack on $1.24 monthly customer service overhead and you net out at $9.77 monthly revenue, and then pay off the Subscriber Acquisition Costs (SAC) of each subscriber of $114 or 11.6 months of revenue....So assume no one quits SIrius, even though they lose 20% ish of their customers every year and there are some seriously funny numbers with the OEM sales...So after the first year of paid service, SIrius has covered the cost of getting the subscriber....now you can start paying howard but not the RIAA or the power bill, ect. Using 9.77 net APRU, it now takes 4,971,852 subscribers paying for TWO YEARS to pay howard's cost and the cost of customer acquisition...all this in a business where the average customers quits in less than 18 months... Wow, what strategic masterstroke! You don't see DirecTV or Dish doing this sort of thing, even though they are in exactly same type situation as XM and Sirius.

Sirius has lost 3.8 billion dollars in its operations so far...if almost all the subscribers they taken in over the last two years are needed to pay off howard and the costs of the hardware/marketing, a merger isn't going to get them out of that hole. Yes, Howard was a great marketing move, but it was exceptionally poor financial move...And if howard is as powerful as you suggest, in three years time, he's just going to demand that XM or SIrius just given him the whole company in exchange for a contract.]]>Jul 9th 2007 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
"Since howard came on board in 2005, Sirius has lost 1.4 million subscribers (page 32)...so of all those people Howard brought, how many actually stuck around?"

You say that Sirius lost 1.4 million subscribers since 2005, but fail to mention That Sterns first show did not broadcast until Jan 1st 2006. So I would think they would at least stick around to hear his first show. Now they have approx 6 million subscribers. Sure there are subscribers who did not join because of Stern and one would have to be nuts to think that he would be a reason to purchase a car (Hell, it would be nuts for one to choose a car based on the radio).

Whether you like Karmizan or not is irrelevant. CEO's just don't give bonuses away because they feel like it. They attributed the bulk of subscribers that they got as a result of signing Stern and it is no coincidence that they were below 1 million subscribers before he signed to 6 million now with no other significant signings.

As for mentioning overhead and other costs, these were costs that were already there whether Stern was there or not. The bottom line is that they paid out 500 million and 500 million was brought back in within 7.5 months. Sirius was in the red before Stern and had they not acquired him, they would most likely be buried now.

You are missing the main reason why both companies are losing money and that is the current price point. It is too low to turn a decent profit. Make it higher and you don't get as many subscribers. Make it too low and you can't afford the talent. Both companies settled on a price point that they felt subscribers would pay but would keep them afloat for a while so they can out bid each other signing talent and sports organizations. If they merge, they will not be competing with each other over who signs the next big entertainer, they remove redundancies and spend less on advertising aimed at each other.]]>Jul 9th 2007 3:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
People are used to free radio and need a compelling reason to pay for it. Sports programming and provocative talk shows that get neutered by the FCC are what brings them in. Paying out big contracts while keeping subscribers fees static may not be the most profitable move, but when thinking long term, it is better than the alternative which is a bunch of bricked radios because XM and Sirius went belly up due to lack of content.]]>Jul 9th 2007 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
Nor are prices static...I seem to remember a rather sizable, 30% price jump by XM to match Sirius not that long ago...right about the time I dropped XM.

While there would be some savings earned by not having to market one service against the another, most of the marketing efforts are based on explaining why customers should buy satellite radio in the first place, and that expense won't go away post merger. And given that the hardware cost is about 4 to 6 months of service, in the long run the cost of "bricked" hardware isn't that great in the scale of things...esp since there are already millions of radios out there that were "bricked" (although this can be reversed) radios due to deactivation by former customers who didn't think the service was worth the expense.]]>Jul 9th 2007 10:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
You focus on 1.05 million cancellations in 2006, but fail to acknowledge, from your own link, that they finished the fiscal year of 2006 with 6,024,555 subscribers. This is 5 million more than they had before Howard made the announcement he is coming to sirius, so I would say his new show glow was well worth it.


Let's face it, the men running both XM and Sirius know a bit more than you or I on this subject. On one hand you can have Satellite going out of business by keeping subscriptions low and not having content worth a spit. On the other hand you can have them keeping subscription costs low, but pay more for content that is going to increase their subscriber base and operate in the red for a while. This is why the NAB is scared shitless of a merger. Instead of spending capital competing against each other, Satellite will now be able to focus their attention on broadcast.

"Nor are prices static...I seem to remember a rather sizable, 30% price jump by XM to match Sirius not that long ago...right about the time I dropped XM."


That right there shoots anyones argument that a merger will increase prices, since XM raised theirs specifically to compete with Sirius.
]]>Jul 10th 2007 5:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
With that logic why do we need multiple Broadband Internet providers? Let's just have 1 company be the exclusive provider of all broadband access in America and if poeple don't like it, they can always use dial-up. ]]>Jul 8th 2007 8:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Let's look at Apple for example. Do you think the iPod with video we enjoy today would've had video if the competitors didn't introduce video capabilities in their products? Even Jobs was against putting video in the iPods. But, he had to yield in order to maintain that PMP domination. Same thing with price. I just bought the iPod with video and it cost me $100 less than the 4th Gen U2 which is also 10gigs lighter. Sure cost of parts and manufacturing become cheaper as volume increases and time passes by. But, my point is that the only way a company can attempt to keep high prices is when there is no competition.

Monopoly leads to abuse. Look at what MS has done in the OS arena. And I'm not saying that Apple wouldn't be behaving in the same way if they were in MS's position. I use both OS by the way. And please, let's not consider Linux just yet. Although it has come a long way, the general public is not ready for the transition. One reason is because the general public has been conditioned to think that "Windows is the only OS we need, and Apple doesn't have enough programs to make a purchase make sense, and that Linux is too hard, complicated, and not enough drivers and/or companies that support it." This is the general, yet mistaken, belief most people have. And that's why MS is the big gorilla in the picture with the power to dictate the direction for the masses.

I'm not saying that there aren't any good companies out there. However, history has taught us that the large majority of companies strive for a monopoly, and once they're there, the abuse begins. Cable companies are very good at it because we don't have a lot of choices in our neighborhoods. Sure there's satellite. But I don't want some tech hammering and drilling antennas on my walls or ceilings. Use what I've already have built-in in my house. High speed internet providers are similar as well. Where I live we only get cable. We have no dsl or any other choice. And by the way, who in their right mind would go back to dial-up?

I don't use Sirius or XM. But, this merger is a huge mistake. And, if it gets approved, I can guarantee you someone got paid a hefty campaign contribution or received a job after they leave office in a few months. ]]>Jul 8th 2007 10:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
And just like Jim said, there is cable, there is dsl, and there is fiber-optic. Three mediums. Only one for Satellite dude.]]>Jul 8th 2007 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 1:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
I loved Sirius at first, but now that I know there are options...I want more options!]]>Jul 8th 2007 10:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/Jul 8th 2007 2:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/

Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC

January 28, 2005

Mr. Patrick L. Donnelly
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
SIRIUS Satellite Radio
1221 Avenue off the Americas
New York, NY 10020

File Nos: IB Docket No. 95-91; SAT-MOD-20040212-00017;
. . . .

Dear Mr. Donnelly:

As an alternative to the Commission mandating standards for receivers used in providing Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), SDARS operators are to certify to the Commission that their systems include a receiver that will permit end users to access all licensed SDARS systems that are operational or under construction.1 The Commission authorized Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (Sirius) in 1997 to provide SDARS in the United States subject to such a certification.2 The authorization of the other SDARS licensee, XM Radio Inc. (XM Radio), is subject to an identical certification requirement.3

In our recent authorization of XM Radio for the launch and operation of
replacement satellites,4 we noted that Sirius and XM Radio have on file a letter dated October 6, 2000, in which the two SDARS licensees announced an agreement to develop a unified standard for satellite radios, and stated their anticipation that interoperable chips capable of receiving both services would be produced in volume in mid-2004.5 The two licensees also stated their agreement to introduce interim interoperable radios, prior to the introduction of fully-interoperable chipsets, that would include a common wiring harness,

[PAGE 2]

head unit, antenna, and an interchangeable trunk-mounted box containing processing elements for both company's signals.6

In order to reflect more accurately the status of SDARS licensees' efforts in developing interoperable receivers, we are requesting that Sirius and XM Radio file an update to the October 6, 2000 Letter in pending proceedings where interoperable receivers are an issue. Although the Commission is cognizant of the differences between the two SDARS licensees' transmission technologies that initially affected the ability to develop receiver interoperability,7 it is not clear, given the passage of time, that these differences still exist.

For this reason, we request that Sirius submit to the Satellite Division, within 45 days from the date of this letter, the status of Sirius' efforts to develop an interoperable receiver and its time frame for making such an interoperable receiver available to the public.8

Please contact JoAnn Lucanik, (202) 418-0873, or Stephen Duall, (202) 418-1103, of my staff if you have any questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Tcyz
Chief
Satellite Division

cc: Carl R. Frank
Counsel
Wiley Rein & Fielding LP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 719-7049 (Fax)

[footnotes for page 1]

1 Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, . . . .

2 Satellite CD Radio. Inc., Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 7971, 7995 (para. 57) (Int'l Bur. 1997) ( 1997 Sirius Authorization Order) ("IS FURTHER ORDERED that this authorization is subject to certification by [Sirius] that its final receiver design is interoperable with respect to the [XM Radio Inc.]'s Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service system final receiver design.").

3 American Mobile Radio Corporation, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 8829, 8851 (para 54) (Int'l Bur. 1997).

4 XM Radio Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 05-180 (Int'l Bur. Sat. Div, rel. Jan. 26, 2005}

5 Letter from John R. Wormington. XM Radio Inc., and Robert D. Briskman. Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, dated Oct. 6, 2000 (October 6 Letter).

[footnotes for page 2]

6 October 6 Letter at 4.

7 1997 Sirius Authorization Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 7990 (para. 42).

8 We have also separately instructed XM Radio to file such a status report within the same time period.

[end of letter]

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t47190.html]]>Jul 8th 2007 4:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
Keep in mind that in an interview on Sirius Buzz, Hartlieb admitted to being a share holder and to being "pro merger". This brings up serious credibility issues to make claims over technology that may not be there. The interviewer completely avoided that one question over Hartlieb's claim, of which has been picked up by media oulets all over the world. How could they get an exclusive interview with the guy and not even ask him about his claim that is making so much press?

The whole thing smells funny. Do not believe everything you read in the press and especially from this Hartlieb commentor. Dont believe it until he gives his qualifications and can acurrately attribute his claims to a reliable source. Until then, too many are getting caught up in wishful thinking over technology that is likely not there.]]>Jul 9th 2007 11:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
He's filed a Petition for review, a Petition for rulemaking and a Petition for declaratory ruling. He's also had 3 Ex Parte presentations on June 26, June 27 and July 3 with Fcc staff, all related to the Fcc's recent NPRM over the current rules.

Funny thing is, he even quotes satellite radio news blogs as credible fact. And throughout all his filings he maintains that "he's been told" that some current receivers can receive both services with a firmware upgrade. Yet he doesnt cite his sources or quantify how this can be in any way. The public is just supposed to trust what he says. He's apparently been pushing this belief of his since April.

Its insane that some of the tech sites actually picked up on this bullshit after all this time. Give a guy a computer, internet access and persistance and its amazing what they'll be able to convince so many naive readers into thinking is the truth. He's already admitted to being a pro merger shareholder, who reads satellite radio blogs, it raises serious credibility issues.]]>Jul 9th 2007 12:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/08/sirius-xm-receivers-may-play-both-sides/
If the merger isn't allowed, one or BOTH companies will fail. In the event one does, the other company will quickly snatch things up at pennies on the dollar (equipment, DJ's, etc) and there will only be ONE satellite provider anyway.

Sirius has already expressed the fact that they will NOT require a new radio in the event this happens. All they would need to do is either a firmware update, or simply cross-broadcast by linking the two main servers up and broadcasting more channels both ways. There are a MILLION technical solutions to broadcasting both streams to both types of radios.

This merger would ONLY be a good thing. Satellite radio companies are, for the most part, cannibalistic. For music, they BOTH offer commercial free, themed music channels and if you're in it for music, the service you choose will mean nothing. For the iPod faithful (millions strong), there are now a ridiculous bevvy of options to get your iPod music to your car stereo. This CLEARLY competes with terrestrial radio as did CDs for years. The problem was CD's carry with them IMPOSSIBLE physical storage for the car environment while iPod's obviously do NOT. This is why the iPod (DAP) has become such a serious competitor.

Aside from that, Clear Channel and the NAB are ridiculous, ruthless and corrupt. Who wouldn't want to see them go down in flames, or maybe instead actually have to fight for some of the profits out there. They've had it so easy for so long ...]]>Jul 9th 2007 11:43AM