Let's start with a bang... Which is better Stirus or XM?

[BS]

My preference is Sirius.

[L Alpert]

BS wrote:
> My preference is Sirius.

Since all I have ever had is XM, it would be difficult to judge whom is
"better". I see Sirius will have Howard Stern....should be quite
interesting uncensored......

[Mark Mastrocinque]

Are they really be so different??...no. The formats are very
similar....choice will come down to very particular choices.

"BS" <brooke_sahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ph7jd.5412$zx1.4688@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> My preference is Sirius.
>

[Bob Haberkost]

"Mark Mastrocinque" <mark.mastrocinque@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2D8jd.558$gS1.557@trndny04...

> "BS" <brooke_sahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ph7jd.5412$zx1.4688@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> My preference is Sirius.

> Are they really be so different??...no. The formats are very
> similar....choice will come down to very particular choices.

I think that's pretty much what it comes down to....program choices. I picked Sirius
solely for the presence of NPR and PRI programming, absent on XM. I'd have a more
difficult time now, with Bob Edwards on XM, but I think I'd still opt for Sirius
because I'm betting that the CRTC (Canada) will be approving the Sirius/CBC/Standard
Radio bid to expand Sirius to Canada, in the process bringing CBC programming to U-S
listeners. Sirius's birds, due to the high-altitude geosynchronous orbits they have,
have a higher altitude, making for better northern coverage. This, I believe, will
make the Sirius application the more attractive of the two to the Canadian regulatory
agency.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <Ph7jd.5412$zx1.4688@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, BS
<brooke_sahm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My preference is Sirius.

It depends on what you listen to. Check out the web page:
http://www.johnweeks.com/steps/siriusvrsxm12step.html

To summarize:

urban travel - XM
rural travel - Sirius
rock music - Sirius
non-rock music - XM
talk radio - XM
public radio - Sirius
sound quality - XM
sports talk - XM
sports games - Sirius
nascar - XM
truck talk - Sirius

-john-

--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================

[sum1else]

brooke_sahm@yahoo.com wrote provocatively:

> My preference is Sirius.
>
Your reasons?

I opted for XM,far as I recall, partly because I liked the layout of
their channels, this was a year ago.
i was also attracted by their promise of audio book readings on
channel 163, but
after 12 weeks or so, I found they were just repeating the same old
books over and over.
Disappointing.
Apart from that, though, I'm 95 per cent happy with XM.
--
Ian

[2Rowdy]

Message i.d.:<news:Ph7jd.5412$zx1.4688@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
by author BS aka <brooke_sahm@yahoo.com> inspired me,
> My preference is Sirius.

I have an XM
Some might consider that being off-topic. ;-)
--
Johan; Certifiable me; Reply to Hotm ail
GottaCit?ViCit www.aaCit.net
news:alt.autos.citroen

[Fritz Wue]

I would like to have your choice.
Here in Germany we only have WorldSpace,
but some exotic channels:
Ngoma Johannesburg......KBC Nairobi.....

....and probably nobody else in town has ever
heard something about a satellite radio
you cannot listen to with a standard satellite dish.

Fritz

[.]

"2Rowdy" <harry131313@deadspam.com> wrote :
> I have an XM
> Some might consider that being off-topic. ;-)

I heard this newsgroup was the place where I could find out about importing
Citroen XM's to Canada. Can someone help? LOL

[.]

Just want to comment on some of the things mentioned on your webpage you
cited:

> Urban Coverage. XM wins in urban coverage. This is due to XM having ground
stations in most major urban areas. While you might be
> blocked from seeing a satellite, the ground station will fill in for you.
I have gotten solid coverage in downtown Minneapolis, even in the
> highway tunnels and under long bridges. Sirius, on the other hand, blanks
out any time you pass under any bridge, or drive next to a
> building. In driving in downtown Minneapolis, Sirius is blanked out up to
50% of the time. If you want a radio for driving around town, XM is
> the better choice. But make sure that your area has a ground station if
you have a lot of freeway bridges and taller buildings.

Sirius also has terrestrial repeaters. They do not have as many as XM but
this is due to the higher average elevation above the horizon. Also Sirius
tends to use high power repeaters, where XM has some high power ones but
will supplement other areas with low powered repeaters. The number of low
powered repeaters that they use to illuminate highway corridors with
coverage inflates the total number of repeaters that XM quotes. While I'm
nowhere near Minneapolis and cannot comment on what the terrestrial repeater
situation is there, I would be somewhat suprised to find out that such a
large town does not have a terrestrial repeater. Now in Canada, we don't
have any repeaters as of yet, so downtown I'm screwed. XM is so low on the
horizon here (more because of my position east than my position north) that
it is impossible to listen to whilst mobile.

I find that the sound quality is very subjective. Both XM and Sirius sound
good to me. This largely depends on the equipment you are using and how you
have it hooked up to your radio. RF modulators suck. Period. Wired RF
mods are better but still have poor audio quality. If you are looking for
better sound than an FM radio station, you won't get it with an RF mod
besides improvements with no fading or multipath and what not. You really
should directly wire up the radios via auxiliary inputs on your radio. Most
aftermarket radios have some sort of direct inputs you can use. Given that
you use this direct wiring for both XM and Sirius you should have excellent
sound quality. Both companies purport that they have CD quality sound; I
disagree. However, they do sound good and much better than most online
streaming sorts. I do notice compression artifacts on both XM and Sirius.
I find Sirius' the worst when the DJ's are talking on the music channels in
between songs. This used to be a lot worse than what it is now, maybe I've
just gotten used to it but I've always thought the music sounded grand. I
do find that after listening to Sirius for a long time and then switch over
to XM, that I think XM sounds really full of artifacts, and the same thing
happens when I switch back to Sirius. I guess my ears just get accustomed
to the compression on each service and the differences are accentuated when
I switch after listening to one for a long period of time.

Your take on commercials is interesting. There are no real commercials on
the music stations on both Sirius or XM now. There are channel promos like
you say or if there is some sort of contest they'll promote that, as well as
get your friends to get satellite radio or sign yourself up for an extra
receiver in that other car or for the house. The talk stations are full of
commercials as they mostly come from other sources; no argument there.

Correction to your pages Howard Stern comment. He's not coming in 2005 but
Jan 2006 to Sirius.
Addition to your sports mention, XM has signed the MLB, a big score for
them.

Sirius' traffic stations are shared, however some newer model PnP's have a
button you can press that will automatically change the station for you when
your city is playing. Usually you only have to wait a minute or two. In
the meantime, you can still listen to your favourite stream until your city
is queued up.

XM also has Radio Disney, and as of late their sound quality on R.D. has
been better than Sirius'. However, Sirius shows the song title and artists
on RD but XM just shows the name of the on air DJ at all times. Sirius does
have another Kids channel which has just as good sound quality as the rest
of the channels. I find XM's profane channels easier to identify because
they show xL next to the channel name for extreme language. Sirius it's a
guessing game. Also, I've heard Sirius slip up a few times on the channels
which are supposed to be family friendly, i.e. Hits 1, and play some
unedited stuff or say something profane. Sirius will upon request lock out
profance channels for free via the signal itself or some models I understand
you can lock out whatever channels you want right on the radio.

Another note on your comment on radio displays. XM is limited to something
like 16 characters where Sirius has twice this much. The newest XM models
support more than the standard 16, I think the radios that will do this are
the SkyFi2 and the MyFi. First the 16 character title and artist come up
and then after a second or two, the full artist/title will show. On other
radios, trying to determine what a song is really called on XM can be really
annoying. There is a really long thread on XMFan about the strange/funny
artist/song combinations they've seen on their XM displays.

[Rocinante]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:50:55 GMT, BS wrote:

> My preference is Sirius.

Any news when the XM - Sirius combo units are coming out?

--
"It's good to have money and the things that money can buy, but it's good,
too, to check up once in a while and make sure that you haven't lost the
things that money can't buy."
--George Horace Lorimer
RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
11/6/2004 9:35:01 PM

[.]

> > My preference is Sirius.
>
> Any news when the XM - Sirius combo units are coming out?

I've heard as early as 2006 but we'll see......

[2Rowdy]

Message i.d.:<news:cmjt9r$69a$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net>,
by author . aka <.@.> inspired me,
> "2Rowdy" <harry131313@deadspam.com> wrote :
>> I have an XM
>> Some might consider that being off-topic. ;-)
>
> I heard this newsgroup was the place where I could find out about
> importing Citroen XM's to Canada. Can someone help? LOL

Heh. Now that's on-topic,, in alt.autos.citroen.
:-)
--
Johan; Certifiable me; Reply to Hotm ail
Payed advert
http://www.hurktoilet.nl/frankrijk.htm

[Barry Delfino]

"BS" <brooke_sahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ph7jd.5412$zx1.4688@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> My preference is Sirius.

I chose Sirius over XM for one reason: More talk channels. I enjoy Sirius
very much, and I hope they start making a profit soon. :-)

[D Ray]

There are lots of subjective views on which is better; true
objectivity is difficult to find. But here are some simple guidelines
to decide which is the best SDARS service (to be considered in order
of appearance):

a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.

b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.

c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.

d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.

e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
choice.

f) If you have to have the best, smallest, most advanced hardware with
the most exciting features, XM is your clear choice.

g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.

h) If you have to have Howard Stern, Sirius will be your choice in 15
months.

i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
Sirius.

j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.

k) If you require eclectic music selection, XM is your clear choice.

l) If you are looking for deeper playlists, XM is your clear choice.

m) If you are looking for shallower (FM-like) playlists, both services
have them but they dominate Sirius whereas XM playlists tend to be
longer. Some people just want to hear the top-40 from every genre;
Sirius is the clear choice for those.

n) If you are looking for the potential for added services (not
content, but services) XM has a dominant position today with
"Navtraffic" and "WeatherWorx".

o) If financial stability is important, XM is your clear choice.


I have both and I'm highly biased toward XM because the music is
better IMO.

[Joern Bredereck]

Fritz Wue <Friedrich.Wue@t-online.de> wrote:

> I would like to have your choice.
> Here in Germany we only have WorldSpace,
> but some exotic channels:
> Ngoma Johannesburg......KBC Nairobi.....

sad but true... I'm from Germany too and I can only agree. It sounds
tempting to have such a big choice of radio channels in the car. But I
think is is not going to happen here in the next couple of years.

Worldspace is not really a replacement for Sirius or XM. Worldspace aims
for Africa and can't be heard in the car here in Germany.

Maybe DRM will fill in for this gap. Digital shortwave could be an
interesting alternative for satelite radio.


--
Joern

[.]

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0411070947.91c70d@posting.google.com...
> There are lots of subjective views on which is better; true
> objectivity is difficult to find.

I hope you're not suggesting that what you just posted was an example of
"true objectivity" :)

> I have both and I'm highly biased toward XM because the music is
> better IMO.

I can tell!

> a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.
>
> b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.

Never did the fact that I drive a Nissan come to play in which provider I
chose. What model car you drive only matters if you have a car newer than
say 2 years old AND if you want to use your factory stereo to control the
satellite radio. PnP's will still work on any model car as long as it has a
radio with FM or aux in, plus other units will work with PIE adapters. If
you do not feel PnP's degrade the appearance of your dash or wherever you
choose to mount it, they are the way to go, and much cheaper than factory
satellite radio options.


> c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.

Don't forget the NHL (if they ever come back) and the NBA are both on
Sirius.

> d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
>
> e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
> choice.

Sirius' Xact can be used portably, but yes the MyFi is much smaller. We
will see how well it will actually perform when used like a walkman outside
of an area with strong repeater coverage. With a $350 price tag, it could
be an expensive thing to find out. Oh yes, you can use an external
antenna.. I guess I can stick it to the metal plate in my head! :-P

> f) If you have to have the best, smallest, most advanced hardware with
> the most exciting features, XM is your clear choice.

Best is subjective, as well as "most exciting features." Sirius radios have
many features and if anything it is XM finally starting to copy the exciting
features Sirius has had for a year now. I usually hear XM users complaining
how they don't have that many choices in equipment. If you want an XM PnP,
you have Delphi to choose from and ....uhmm Delphi. Take a look at XM's own
product catalog. They're not showing the SkyFi2 there yet, but still, it
looks pretty barren in the land of PnP's:
http://www.xmradio.com/catalog/product_category.jsp?type=Tuner

If you want a Sirius PnP, you have a few more manufacturers to choose from,
like Blaupunkt, Audivox, JVC, Xact, Sanyo, Clarion, Kenwood and Brix.
http://www.sirius.com/BrowseProducts/PlugAndPlay

> g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
> with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.

Yep, XM has ACC, Pac 10 and Big 10 conference football and basketball. If
you like a popular team in another conference then you're out of luck.
Sirius carries 26 teams and they're not all in ACC, Pac 10 or the Big 10.

> h) If you have to have Howard Stern, Sirius will be your choice in 15
> months.

Less than 14 now! Jan '06 :-)

> i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
> it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
> your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
> Sirius.

The only shock I got when I listened to O&A on the online streaming free
trial was how boring they were. I will give them some months to warm back
up since they've been out of the business for what a couple of years now,
then I'll listen again and see if they're any better. I would have to find
them quite entertaining to justify paying an extra couple of dollars just to
listen to them. Howard Stern will be available on Sirius for no extra
charge, and he won't be coming on after a couple of years vacation so he'll
still be fresh.

> j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
> limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
> Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
> generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
> the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.
>
> k) If you require eclectic music selection, XM is your clear choice.

XM seems to be getting less and less eclectic all the time. What happened
to Special X and On the Rocks? They got the Axe. Sirius users complained
that they took the Vortex away so they added Area 63. They listened to
their listeners. XM listeners complain about Special X and On the Rocks
being sent to the chopping block and what do they do? They bring it
back --- but, only as part of their online streaming service which is an
extra charge even for subscribers, and those channels aren't programmed.
They are in shuffle mode like an mp3 player. I guess that's another
criterion for deciding which provider to choose. If you want online
streaming and you don't want to pay extra for it, choose Sirius. If you
want online streaming, albeit twice the bitrate but at a price, go with XM.

> l) If you are looking for deeper playlists, XM is your clear choice.
>
> m) If you are looking for shallower (FM-like) playlists, both services
> have them but they dominate Sirius whereas XM playlists tend to be
> longer. Some people just want to hear the top-40 from every genre;
> Sirius is the clear choice for those.

I would reword this to say, if you would like to listen to a station where
you recognize more than 1 song an hour, Sirius is your clear choice. If you
have never gotten that feeling, the feeling that you get when you buy a CD
and you only like one or two songs and the other songs are rubbish, then XM
is your clear choice. For those who have felt they've wasted lots of money
on CD's that only had one or two worthwhile songs on them then Sirius is
your clear choice.

> n) If you are looking for the potential for added services (not
> content, but services) XM has a dominant position today with
> "Navtraffic" and "WeatherWorx".

Now why would you choose a satellite radio service based on that? Do you
plan on adding aviation weather with moving sectionals to your car? You can
not get WX Worx or NavTraffic on any regular XM receiver but the custom ones
which are like $1000+ and cost at least $50/mo. If there is any relevance
to mentioning WXWorx and NavTraffic, it would be to say that XM is using up
its precious 4MHz of bandwidth with crud that is useless to 99.9999% of
their subscribers.

> o) If financial stability is important, XM is your clear choice.

How is XM more financially stable than Sirius? Both are in debt and won't
break even for a couple of years yet. I'm going to grasp straws at possible
reasons you will give me. Firstly, I may be underestimating you by saying
you may say "stock price." I'm hoping you are smarter than that. XM has
more subscribers. Well, yes they do because they launched their service
about a year before Sirius did. Sirius had problems with their chipset
provider which caused them to postpone their release. If you look at
subscriber numbers you will see they are very close to where XM was the same
amount of months ago that Sirius was released late.

[Tock]

"BS" <brooke_sahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ph7jd.5412$zx1.4688@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> My preference is Sirius.


I prefer the Jazz on XMSR's channel 70 over what they play on Sirius.
That's just my personal opinon . . . otherwise, they seem about the same to
me.

-Tock

[D Ray]

>
> > a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.
> >
> > b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.
>
> Never did the fact that I drive a Nissan come to play in which provider I
> chose.

The point was that these models come with factory installed units of
each service provider; Nissans, you can get either. The factory
install is the most important factor in the decision process.


> > c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.
>
> Don't forget the NHL (if they ever come back) and the NBA are both on
> Sirius.

That's correct. If you need NHL or NBA, Sirius is your choice. I
haven't heard of many people selecting SatRad on the basis of NHL or
NBA.

>
> > d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
> >
> > e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
> > choice.
>
> Sirius' Xact can be used portably, but yes the MyFi is much smaller.

As is the new Delphi PAS (Personal Audio System) for the Roady2.

>
> Best is subjective, as well as "most exciting features." Sirius radios have
> many features and if anything it is XM finally starting to copy the exciting
> features Sirius has had for a year now. I usually hear XM users complaining
> how they don't have that many choices in equipment. If you want an XM PnP,
> you have Delphi to choose from and ....uhmm Delphi. Take a look at XM's own
> product catalog. They're not showing the SkyFi2 there yet, but still, it
> looks pretty barren in the land of PnP's:
> http://www.xmradio.com/catalog/product_category.jsp?type=Tuner
>

LMAO. So, I get it. I'm not objective but you are. ROTF.

> If you want a Sirius PnP, you have a few more manufacturers to choose from,
> like Blaupunkt, Audivox, JVC, Xact, Sanyo, Clarion, Kenwood and Brix.
> http://www.sirius.com/BrowseProducts/PlugAndPlay

Yes, and they all are about the size of a toaster.

>
> > g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
> > with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.
>
> Yep, XM has ACC, Pac 10 and Big 10 conference football and basketball. If
> you like a popular team in another conference then you're out of luck.
> Sirius carries 26 teams and they're not all in ACC, Pac 10 or the Big 10.

Like I said.


> > i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
> > it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
> > your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
> > Sirius.
>
> The only shock I got when I listened to O&A on the online streaming free
> trial was how boring they were. I will give them some months to warm back
> up since they've been out of the business for what a couple of years now,
> then I'll listen again and see if they're any better. I would have to find
> them quite entertaining to justify paying an extra couple of dollars just to
> listen to them. Howard Stern will be available on Sirius for no extra
> charge, and he won't be coming on after a couple of years vacation so he'll
> still be fresh.
>

Well, I wouldn't find either O&A or Stern "entertaining". But those
who do aren't exactly discriminating in their tastes -- I have a
feeling they'll settle for O&A.

>
> XM seems to be getting less and less eclectic all the time. What happened
> to Special X and On the Rocks? They got the Axe.

These were nothing channels. XM didn't drop them without doing their
homework. They sucked.

> criterion for deciding which provider to choose. If you want online
> streaming and you don't want to pay extra for it, choose Sirius. If you
> want online streaming, albeit twice the bitrate but at a price, go with XM.

Actually, if you want online streaming and don't want to buy a radio,
you need to get XM. Sirius cannot provide online streaming unless you
have a radio. XM's streaming is much better sound quality, as well.
And the price is right.

XM's streaming is just more professionally done. But you're correct
-- you do have to pay a little for it.

>
> I would reword this to say, if you would like to listen to a station where
> you recognize more than 1 song an hour, Sirius is your clear choice. If you
> have never gotten that feeling, the feeling that you get when you buy a CD
> and you only like one or two songs and the other songs are rubbish, then XM
> is your clear choice. For those who have felt they've wasted lots of money
> on CD's that only had one or two worthwhile songs on them then Sirius is
> your clear choice.
>

This isn't correct. XM has Top40 channels, too, as well as TopTrax --
which is all popular music but still with much deeper playlists. But
Sirius has nothing that compares, for example, with DeepTracks.

There are channels, like Hear Music and Fine Tuning, that are too
eclectic for some tastes. I can listen to Fine Tuning and hear some
stuff I know and other stuff I don't. But I have CDs numbering in the
thousands, and I appreciate being able to hear music I haven't heard
before and that I know I would have never found on CDs.

>
> Now why would you choose a satellite radio service based on that? Do you
> plan on adding aviation weather with moving sectionals to your car? You can
> not get WX Worx or NavTraffic on any regular XM receiver but the custom ones
> which are like $1000+ and cost at least $50/mo. If there is any relevance
> to mentioning WXWorx and NavTraffic, it would be to say that XM is using up
> its precious 4MHz of bandwidth with crud that is useless to 99.9999% of
> their subscribers.

The relevance is that XM technology is lightyears ahead of Sirius.
We're going to continue to see technical improvements from XM that
simply aren't practical for Sirius. For example, XM's involvement
with Digital Fountain is a clear indicator of things to come.

>
> How is XM more financially stable than Sirius? Both are in debt and won't
> break even for a couple of years yet. I'm going to grasp straws at possible
> reasons you will give me. Firstly, I may be underestimating you by saying
> you may say "stock price." I'm hoping you are smarter than that. XM has
> more subscribers. Well, yes they do because they launched their service
> about a year before Sirius did. Sirius had problems with their chipset
> provider which caused them to postpone their release. If you look at
> subscriber numbers you will see they are very close to where XM was the same
> amount of months ago that Sirius was released late.

You're confused. XM is much more stable financially because they are
fully funded to cash flow breakeven while Sirius will have to have
more capital -- by my estimate $300M or more to get there. XM will
get there in early '06 (recently moved out because of the deal with
MLB), while Sirius is looking at '08 and beyond. XM launched there
service just over six months before XM. XM's lead is because of (a)
better OEM deals and (b) better hardware. Period.

XM's first subscriber numbers were released for Q4'01 (28,000).
Sirius' first subscriber numbers were released for Q1'02 (437), then
Q2'02 (3,320). Hardly comparable.

Sirius has gained in subscribers, but only because of massive spending
-- not only on content (Stern and NFL), but on rebates and other
giveaways to try to get subscribers on board. It costs XM $89 to add
a subscriber. It costs Sirius about $450. (Both as of Q3). This, if
nothing else, tells you why Sirius has financial problems. That said,
I expect both companies to make it -- XM is just much better managed.

[Tom Rutherford]

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0411070947.91c70d@posting.google.com...

<snip>

> j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
> limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
> Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
> generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
> the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.

Does either have American Public Radio? I've got NPR coming out the wazoo,
but I miss APR. I want my "Echoes" back! :-(
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[D Ray]

>
> Any news when the XM - Sirius combo units are coming out?

This isn't happening anytime soon. Both are required to be working
toward interoperability, but there is NOTHING going on there at all.
Earlier this year Sirius' CEO hinted that we're talking at least 5
years off.

[Mark S.]

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0411082118.11390ab7@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.
>> >
>> > b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.
>>
>> Never did the fact that I drive a Nissan come to play in which provider I
>> chose.
>
> The point was that these models come with factory installed units of
> each service provider; Nissans, you can get either. The factory
> install is the most important factor in the decision process.

Maybe for you, but for many it is not. I'd say OEM factory installs as
standard equipment including 3 months or a years worth of service is
important for XM's subscriber counts yet why have they been absent from
their retention percentages? Maybe Sirius should inflate their subscriber
numbers with the Dish network customers who receive Sirius with their
subscription package. Hmm. Anyways, I'd say PnP's fly off the shelves
quicker than factory installs. Maybe if you're buying a car brand new, an
extra $500 or so is just a drop in the bucket but if you already have a car,
this can be a serious amount of money when you consider the price of the
alternatives. The model of car I drive would only matter if I had a whiz
bang factory stereo system that I wanted to use the controls on the radio to
control my satellite radio. Even still, there are adapters out now that
allow you to adapt factory wirings of other cars to use the other brand
satellite radio, like XM Direct.

>> > c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.
>>
>> Don't forget the NHL (if they ever come back) and the NBA are both on
>> Sirius.
>
> That's correct. If you need NHL or NBA, Sirius is your choice. I
> haven't heard of many people selecting SatRad on the basis of NHL or
> NBA.

I guess being here in Canada, you hear more about the importance of having
the NHL than you would there. I would say hockey and basketball are more
radio sports than football is.

>> > d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
>> >
>> > e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
>> > choice.
>>
>> Sirius' Xact can be used portably, but yes the MyFi is much smaller.
>
> As is the new Delphi PAS (Personal Audio System) for the Roady2.

How well do you think an internal antenna is going to perform on satellites
walking around using it like a walkman if you don't live near a repeater?

>>
>> Best is subjective, as well as "most exciting features." Sirius radios
>> have
>> many features and if anything it is XM finally starting to copy the
>> exciting
>> features Sirius has had for a year now. I usually hear XM users
>> complaining
>> how they don't have that many choices in equipment. If you want an XM
>> PnP,
>> you have Delphi to choose from and ....uhmm Delphi. Take a look at XM's
>> own
>> product catalog. They're not showing the SkyFi2 there yet, but still, it
>> looks pretty barren in the land of PnP's:
>> http://www.xmradio.com/catalog/product_category.jsp?type=Tuner
>>
>
> LMAO. So, I get it. I'm not objective but you are. ROTF.

I can be but I need to be Sirius biased since your "objective" review is
very obviously XM biased and maybe potential satellite radio subscribers can
end up with a somewhat objective view of both services. For the record, I
do have both XM and Sirius, but I do use Sirius more because of their
programming and because their signal works better here.

>> If you want a Sirius PnP, you have a few more manufacturers to choose
>> from,
>> like Blaupunkt, Audivox, JVC, Xact, Sanyo, Clarion, Kenwood and Brix.
>> http://www.sirius.com/BrowseProducts/PlugAndPlay
>
> Yes, and they all are about the size of a toaster.

I guess you've seen maybe one Sirius PnP in person and then judge the size
of the rest of them based on what you saw with another. For example the
clarion is about the same size as a roady. It's quite small. I'm not sure
if I even like it that small as the smaller the unit, the smaller the
display and the smaller the text.

>> > g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
>> > with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.
>>
>> Yep, XM has ACC, Pac 10 and Big 10 conference football and basketball.
>> If
>> you like a popular team in another conference then you're out of luck.
>> Sirius carries 26 teams and they're not all in ACC, Pac 10 or the Big 10.
>
> Like I said.
>

Actually you inferred college sports fans would want XM because they carried
3 conferences rather than the 26 most popular teams across many conferences.
To me this would be more of a tossup depending on what your favourite team
is.

>> > i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
>> > it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
>> > your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
>> > Sirius.
>>
>> The only shock I got when I listened to O&A on the online streaming free
>> trial was how boring they were. I will give them some months to warm
>> back
>> up since they've been out of the business for what a couple of years now,
>> then I'll listen again and see if they're any better. I would have to
>> find
>> them quite entertaining to justify paying an extra couple of dollars just
>> to
>> listen to them. Howard Stern will be available on Sirius for no extra
>> charge, and he won't be coming on after a couple of years vacation so
>> he'll
>> still be fresh.
>>
>
> Well, I wouldn't find either O&A or Stern "entertaining". But those
> who do aren't exactly discriminating in their tastes -- I have a
> feeling they'll settle for O&A.

The fact that they would even have to come to a point to "settle" is what's
making O&A not work at XM. People aren't going to pay extra to find out
they're having to settle for O&A and sit there and let them grow on them and
try to "catch the virus." Most of the country has never heard of O&A and
they're not going to pay for someone they've never heard of before. Even
O&A themselves are wishing they had a regular channel like Howard's going
to. I guess they figured more of their fans were going to jump onto the
bandwagon.

>>
>> XM seems to be getting less and less eclectic all the time. What
>> happened
>> to Special X and On the Rocks? They got the Axe.
>
> These were nothing channels. XM didn't drop them without doing their
> homework. They sucked.

Are you trying to tell me Ngoma is getting rave reviews? XM obviously
didn't do their homework as there has been a very vocal outcry from XM fans
afterwards and there still is because the online imitations of those
channels suck and prove the point it's the programming and not the music
that makes the station. They obviously didn't suck that much if XM made the
decision to bring them back on their online service. They just wanted to
make more money by charging for it and spend less by not having to rehire
people to program them.

>> criterion for deciding which provider to choose. If you want online
>> streaming and you don't want to pay extra for it, choose Sirius. If you
>> want online streaming, albeit twice the bitrate but at a price, go with
>> XM.
>
> Actually, if you want online streaming and don't want to buy a radio,
> you need to get XM. Sirius cannot provide online streaming unless you
> have a radio. XM's streaming is much better sound quality, as well.
> And the price is right.
>
> XM's streaming is just more professionally done. But you're correct
> -- you do have to pay a little for it.

Actually, if I wanted online streaming and didn't want to buy a radio, I'd
use one of the thousands of free, higher bit rate online streams rather than
paying XM $8/mo for 64k/sec streams. But since I do have a radio and I do
have a subscription, I'd expect XM to include at least their 32k/sec streams
for free like Sirius does, rather than having me pay an extra $4/mo. I
don't think the sound quality is different enough to justify me spending an
extra $4/mo. I'll keep making up free disposable email addresses every 3
days instead. I'm suprised so many people choose XM because they think it's
cheaper, but it really isn't if you want the same things you get at Sirius.

>> I would reword this to say, if you would like to listen to a station
>> where
>> you recognize more than 1 song an hour, Sirius is your clear choice. If
>> you
>> have never gotten that feeling, the feeling that you get when you buy a
>> CD
>> and you only like one or two songs and the other songs are rubbish, then
>> XM
>> is your clear choice. For those who have felt they've wasted lots of
>> money
>> on CD's that only had one or two worthwhile songs on them then Sirius is
>> your clear choice.
>>
>
> This isn't correct. XM has Top40 channels, too, as well as TopTrax --
> which is all popular music but still with much deeper playlists. But
> Sirius has nothing that compares, for example, with DeepTracks.
>
> There are channels, like Hear Music and Fine Tuning, that are too
> eclectic for some tastes. I can listen to Fine Tuning and hear some
> stuff I know and other stuff I don't. But I have CDs numbering in the
> thousands, and I appreciate being able to hear music I haven't heard
> before and that I know I would have never found on CDs.

XM Top 20 on 20 isn't any deeper than Sirius Hits 1. In fact, I'd sat Hits
1 is deeper. Hits 1 also has a real DJ where 20 on 20 has a computer voice
that says this song was #17 and received 2 thousand - 4 - hundred - fifty -
six votes.

I'd say The Vault or The Spectrum compares with Deep Tracks. As a whole, I
think that Sirius' lineup of classic rock stations is one of their stronger
points. Sirius Disorder is eclectic enough for most tastes. Hear Music is
the starbucks channel, whoopee. I appreciate hearing music I've never heard
before as long as it is good. I don't like being forced to listen to hours
upon hours of stuff I've never heard before or haven't heard in a long time
for a reason, like pressing the skip button on the CD player. They need to
mix in more hits to make the misses more bearable instead of hearing a
steady string of B sides.

>> Now why would you choose a satellite radio service based on that? Do you
>> plan on adding aviation weather with moving sectionals to your car? You
>> can
>> not get WX Worx or NavTraffic on any regular XM receiver but the custom
>> ones
>> which are like $1000+ and cost at least $50/mo. If there is any
>> relevance
>> to mentioning WXWorx and NavTraffic, it would be to say that XM is using
>> up
>> its precious 4MHz of bandwidth with crud that is useless to 99.9999% of
>> their subscribers.
>
> The relevance is that XM technology is lightyears ahead of Sirius.
> We're going to continue to see technical improvements from XM that
> simply aren't practical for Sirius. For example, XM's involvement
> with Digital Fountain is a clear indicator of things to come.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. Those satellites will
transmit whatever you send to them. If that happened to be 30 full frame
video channels, or high speed satellite internet or 120 audio channels it
doesn't matter. The technology is still the same. Sirius pioneered using
video on their SDARS system untill XM followed suit experimenting with
mobile video afterwards. If you want to talk about technical improvements
in audio codecs, that actually makes a difference to the average end user.
Sirius is hooked up with ATC labs and a co-developer of the PAC codec. They
use a constantly varying bitrate to move bandwidth around to where it is
needed the most at any given period of time. Talk about lightyears ahead.
As long as XM focuses on using ancillary data services to attempt to
supplement their deficit, this will reduce the available bandwidth to the
vast majority of the users of their service.

>> How is XM more financially stable than Sirius? Both are in debt and
>> won't
>> break even for a couple of years yet. I'm going to grasp straws at
>> possible
>> reasons you will give me. Firstly, I may be underestimating you by
>> saying
>> you may say "stock price." I'm hoping you are smarter than that. XM has
>> more subscribers. Well, yes they do because they launched their service
>> about a year before Sirius did. Sirius had problems with their chipset
>> provider which caused them to postpone their release. If you look at
>> subscriber numbers you will see they are very close to where XM was the
>> same
>> amount of months ago that Sirius was released late.
>
> You're confused. XM is much more stable financially because they are
> fully funded to cash flow breakeven while Sirius will have to have
> more capital -- by my estimate $300M or more to get there.

That's interesting. Smith Barney Citigroup feels that Sirius is a better
value than XM

> XM will
> get there in early '06 (recently moved out because of the deal with
> MLB), while Sirius is looking at '08 and beyond.

CFBE for Sirius is at 2 million subscribers. Sirius will probably exceed 1
million by years end. Do you really think it will take 3 years to gain
another million when Sirius is gaining subscribers at a gain of more than
300% every year? Yeah right. Poor XM is going to have to launch their
ground spare because of power failures on one of their sats and the
insurance isn't covering the full value of the sat.

> XM launched there
> service just over six months before XM. XM's lead is because of (a)
> better OEM deals and (b) better hardware. Period.

XM launched nationwide in November of 2001, Sirius launched nationwide July
1, 2002. That's 8 months. Their OEM deals are better because they come
with vehicles instead of as an option and GM is throwing in years worth of
subscription to try and get people to buy their cars, along with thousands
of dollars cash back and free computers, etc etc. The "better" hardware
like the MyFi is also 3x the cost of most Sirius hardware.

> XM's first subscriber numbers were released for Q4'01 (28,000).
> Sirius' first subscriber numbers were released for Q1'02 (437), then
> Q2'02 (3,320). Hardly comparable.

Let's compare some more numbers. Between 3q '03 and 3q '04, Sirius went
from 182k subscribers to 662k subscribers which is an increase of 364%. In
this same time period, XM went from 930k to 2516k which is a 271% increase.
Who is growing faster? Whose growth is slowing down.

> Sirius has gained in subscribers, but only because of massive spending
> -- not only on content (Stern and NFL), but on rebates and other
> giveaways to try to get subscribers on board.

Stern and the NFL cost $800M. How much did the MLB alone cost XM? $650M.
For one sport which will take up around 20 channels from time to time. Hope
your Hear Music doesn't get preempted for a Mets game. Sirius does
subsidize their equipment to give them a price advantage over XM. Even on
the base cost with no extras on XM, you can sign up with long term plans on
Sirius and end up paying less. XM doesn't have a lifetime plan either.
Their plan seems to be working, too, as they are closing the gap on XM and
adding subscribers at a higher rate.

> It costs XM $89 to add
> a subscriber. It costs Sirius about $450. (Both as of Q3). This, if
> nothing else, tells you why Sirius has financial problems. That said,
> I expect both companies to make it -- XM is just much better managed.

What? Q3 of what year? Sirius' SAC was $229 and is coming down and is
expected to be under $200 by year's end, and that is as of THIS year, 2004's
3Q conference call. Sirius also has a lower churn rate than XM.

[Mark S.]

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0411090621.668f2741@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Any news when the XM - Sirius combo units are coming out?
>
> This isn't happening anytime soon. Both are required to be working
> toward interoperability, but there is NOTHING going on there at all.
> Earlier this year Sirius' CEO hinted that we're talking at least 5
> years off.

The FCC only said that the two should work together to create a single
receiver which would pick up both services. They never did specify a date
for which this should be accomplished. An entirely new chipset would have
to be designed and this is more dependant on the chipset manufacturers than
either XM or Sirius individually.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[D Ray]

>
> > j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
> > limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
> > Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
> > generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
> > the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.
>
> Does either have American Public Radio? I've got NPR coming out the wazoo,
> but I miss APR. I want my "Echoes" back! :-(

Echoes is carried on XM. I'm not familiar with it, but it is listed
on the XM schedule as being from Public Radio International. Here is
the XM Public Radio schedule:

http://xmradio.com/programming/xm_feature.jsp?ch=133&id=452#wbur

[Mark S.]

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:DR2kd.20747$Kt3.20601@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Does either have American Public Radio? I've got NPR coming out the
> wazoo,
> but I miss APR. I want my "Echoes" back! :-(

American Public Radio, now known as Public Radio International, is on both
XM and Sirius. However, "Echoes" is only carried on XM. Here's the PRI
schedules for both services:

XM 133
http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/listeners/xm_schedule.html

Sirius 108
http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/listeners/sirius_schedule.html

[D Ray]

>
> Maybe for you, but for many it is not. I'd say OEM factory installs as
> standard equipment including 3 months or a years worth of service is
> important for XM's subscriber counts yet why have they been absent from
> their retention percentages?

There is no question that XM's deals with GM and Honda have been the
most important single factor in causing SDARS to become mainstream.
Absolutely no question. Without these deals, SatRad would simply not
exist today.

XM's disclosure of promotional subscribers has been totally
transparent. Every quarter the specify the precise number of
subscribers in promotional periods, as well as the percentage of those
who ultimately become self-paying subscribers (60% in Q3). Anyone who
is paying attention can simply determine the number of promo subs that
will become self-paying.

> Maybe Sirius should inflate their subscriber
> numbers with the Dish network customers who receive Sirius with their
> subscription package. Hmm.

These are not paid subscribers. XM defines a "subscriber" as (a) a
radio for which (b) the subscription is being paid for.

> Anyways, I'd say PnP's fly off the shelves
> quicker than factory installs.

Today, they are running about 50/50 at XM. Sirius relies more heavily
on retail installs, but this is changing. Ultimately, the factory
install is the name of the game. More important than anything else in
the decision process (which was the point I made previously). Both
companies openly admit that OEM factory installs are where we are
headed (and "standard equipment" would be the holy grail").


> I guess being here in Canada, you hear more about the importance of having
> the NHL than you would there. I would say hockey and basketball are more
> radio sports than football is.

I agree. And baseball is more of a radio sport than any of them. I
think MLB will prove to be the best content play of them all. Other
than music, of course.

> >> > d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
> >> >
> >> > e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
> >> > choice.
> >>
> >> Sirius' Xact can be used portably, but yes the MyFi is much smaller.
> >
> > As is the new Delphi PAS (Personal Audio System) for the Roady2.
>
> How well do you think an internal antenna is going to perform on satellites
> walking around using it like a walkman if you don't live near a repeater?

This is hard to say, since we've not really had our hands on these
things. I do think that XM obviously recognized the clipon would be
required under certain circumstances. I don't think XM would have
moved forward if they didn't have reasonable control over this
situation. However, the 5 hours of record time on the MyFi is closely
related to the need to have something to listen to when no signal is
available.



> I can be but I need to be Sirius biased since your "objective" review is
> very obviously XM biased and maybe potential satellite radio subscribers can
> end up with a somewhat objective view of both services. For the record, I
> do have both XM and Sirius, but I do use Sirius more because of their
> programming and because their signal works better here.

I think I stated up front my bias toward XM -- just having been a
subscriber to both since their inceptions, and from having held shares
in both (although now, I own no stock in Sirius for reasons I think
are obvious given my commentary).


> I guess you've seen maybe one Sirius PnP in person and then judge the size
> of the rest of them based on what you saw with another. For example the
> clarion is about the same size as a roady. It's quite small. I'm not sure
> if I even like it that small as the smaller the unit, the smaller the
> display and the smaller the text.

I'm familiar with, and have held in my hands, every Sirius product
other than the Blaupunkt.

When you compare the size of the R2 with SIRI receivers, you have to
be sure to measure VOLUME (because thickness is important) and the
size of the required cradle (since several SIRI receivers require a
cradle to operate, like the Sky Fi does).

I think you comprehend there is simply no comparison between XM's
hardware technology and Sirius'. We're talking a year to 18 months,
minimum, difference. Which is an eternity. XM's chipset is basically
two generations ahead of Sirius.

> >> > g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
> >> > with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.
> >>
> >> Yep, XM has ACC, Pac 10 and Big 10 conference football and basketball.
> >> If
> >> you like a popular team in another conference then you're out of luck.
> >> Sirius carries 26 teams and they're not all in ACC, Pac 10 or the Big 10.

I believe it is 24 teams, not 26. And they do have a good selection,
no doubt about it. If they happen to have the team that interests
you, great.

>
> Actually you inferred college sports fans would want XM because they carried
> 3 conferences rather than the 26 most popular teams across many conferences.
> To me this would be more of a tossup depending on what your favourite team
> is.

I didn't infer anything, but I did imply that I suppose. But I agree
with your characterization.


> The fact that they would even have to come to a point to "settle" is what's
> making O&A not work at XM. People aren't going to pay extra to find out
> they're having to settle for O&A and sit there and let them grow on them and
> try to "catch the virus." Most of the country has never heard of O&A and
> they're not going to pay for someone they've never heard of before. Even
> O&A themselves are wishing they had a regular channel like Howard's going
> to. I guess they figured more of their fans were going to jump onto the
> bandwagon.

I think Howard's is going to be a flop, personally. I think he
generates 500K-1M subs, then that's it -- the sub rate will decline
exponentionally. Huge mistake for Sirius, financially. There are
discussions about Sirius buying out his contract, and it very well
could happen. I think Sirius realizes they made a huge mistake buying
him now for 14 months later. They needed the subs now.

>
> Are you trying to tell me Ngoma is getting rave reviews? XM obviously
> didn't do their homework as there has been a very vocal outcry from XM fans
> afterwards and there still is because the online imitations of those
> channels suck and prove the point it's the programming and not the music
> that makes the station. They obviously didn't suck that much if XM made the
> decision to bring them back on their online service. They just wanted to
> make more money by charging for it and spend less by not having to rehire
> people to program them.

There were a few people who bitched about it. But really these
channels -- particularly On the Rocks, sucked and needed to go.


> Actually, if I wanted online streaming and didn't want to buy a radio, I'd
> use one of the thousands of free, higher bit rate online streams rather than
> paying XM $8/mo for 64k/sec streams. But since I do have a radio and I do
> have a subscription, I'd expect XM to include at least their 32k/sec streams
> for free like Sirius does, rather than having me pay an extra $4/mo. I
> don't think the sound quality is different enough to justify me spending an
> extra $4/mo. I'll keep making up free disposable email addresses every 3
> days instead. I'm suprised so many people choose XM because they think it's
> cheaper, but it really isn't if you want the same things you get at Sirius.

I don't think the monthly service fee is that big of a deal. But
streaming is going to be a profit center for XM, while Sirius has
boxed themselves in. Eventually, they will have to charge for it
separately or at least offer it without a regular sub. Just another
bad business decision Sirius made, frankly, out of desperation. XM
now is being shipped on every Windows and Dell desktop, and as part of
every WMP download.

> I'd say The Vault or The Spectrum compares with Deep Tracks.

I disagree. But this is just personal preference.

> As a whole, I
> think that Sirius' lineup of classic rock stations is one of their stronger
> points. Sirius Disorder is eclectic enough for most tastes. Hear Music is
> the starbucks channel, whoopee.

Hear Music is impressive. Starbucks' role in the music business is
going to be substantial, and I'm pleased XM hooked up with them
(although, I had the same view you do at first, until I understood
what was going on with it!).

> I appreciate hearing music I've never heard
> before as long as it is good. I don't like being forced to listen to hours
> upon hours of stuff I've never heard before or haven't heard in a long time
> for a reason, like pressing the skip button on the CD player. They need to
> mix in more hits to make the misses more bearable instead of hearing a
> steady string of B sides.
>

I don't find XM's eclecticism to override the need for good music.
That's to say, I don't find them playing bad music ... just music that
is a little more difficult to come by. And you don't get the
repetition. Sirius playlists are basically like FM -- 600-1000
tracks.

>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. Those satellites will
> transmit whatever you send to them. If that happened to be 30 full frame
> video channels, or high speed satellite internet or 120 audio channels it
> doesn't matter. The technology is still the same.

The differences are many. Yes, the satellites are "bent pipes". But
it is the way XM is using the bandwidth that matters.

> Sirius pioneered using
> video on their SDARS system untill XM followed suit experimenting with
> mobile video afterwards.

Not exactly. XM just acknowledged that the market for 4 channels of
cartoons to the back seat is extremely limited at this point. The key
thing is that XM's video initiative is being done with Digital
Fountain, which is what will make it work. In fact, Digital Fountain
is going to be a key difference between the two companies until Sirius
gets moving with it. They will, eventually.

> If you want to talk about technical improvements
> in audio codecs, that actually makes a difference to the average end user.
> Sirius is hooked up with ATC labs and a co-developer of the PAC codec. They
> use a constantly varying bitrate to move bandwidth around to where it is
> needed the most at any given period of time. Talk about lightyears ahead.
> As long as XM focuses on using ancillary data services to attempt to
> supplement their deficit, this will reduce the available bandwidth to the
> vast majority of the users of their service.

This really isn't a problem. XM can control bandwidth allocation in a
totally adequate manner.

>
> That's interesting. Smith Barney Citigroup feels that Sirius is a better
> value than XM

There are a couple of analysts who do. Almost all agree that XM is a
much better value. In general, analysts have all preferred XM over
Sirius. Kit Spring, at Stifel, is a bit confused about the content
deals and what they mean to Sirius, so he prefers Sirius, as is the
Smith Barney analyst. Essentially, they have jumped to conclusions
about the consequences of the content deals -- as it has turned out,
content is about a 50/50 split, which destroys the argument.

>
> CFBE for Sirius is at 2 million subscribers. Sirius will probably exceed 1
> million by years end. Do you really think it will take 3 years to gain
> another million when Sirius is gaining subscribers at a gain of more than
> 300% every year? Yeah right. Poor XM is going to have to launch their
> ground spare because of power failures on one of their sats and the
> insurance isn't covering the full value of the sat.
>

You don't know what you're talking about. Sirius management has
already backed off the 2M number. The 2M number was about right
before NFL, Stern, Penske, Radio Shack, and the DCX deal. Obviously,
you can see if it was right then it isn't right now that they have
added hundreds of millions in addition fixed expense. This is a
subject I'm intimately knowledgeable about. If you want to hash it
out, go for it. But Sirius won't be hiting CFBE before '08.


> Their OEM deals are better because they come
> with vehicles instead of as an option and GM is throwing in years worth of
> subscription to try and get people to buy their cars, along with thousands
> of dollars cash back and free computers, etc etc. The "better" hardware
> like the MyFi is also 3x the cost of most Sirius hardware.

Whatever. XM's OEM deals are clearly much better than Sirius'.

> Let's compare some more numbers. Between 3q '03 and 3q '04, Sirius went
> from 182k subscribers to 662k subscribers which is an increase of 364%. In
> this same time period, XM went from 930k to 2516k which is a 271% increase.
> Who is growing faster? Whose growth is slowing down.

They're at different places on their growth curves. You can't just
make a comparison like that. When Sirius has grown to 930k subs, the
slope of their growth curve will flatten as well. This is fairly
basic business analysis, not anything earth shattering there.

>
> Stern and the NFL cost $800M. How much did the MLB alone cost XM? $650M.

The NFL was $220M for 7 years at 256 games/year. MLB was $650M for 11
years at 2430 games/year. More importantly, MLB is just a much more
listenable sport than NFL.

The Stern deal was stupid. $100M/year for ONE GUY who is ONE SLIP OF
THE TONGUE away from disaster. Bad business. They are desperate to
get subs, and this is their approach -- which is the reason these two
analysts are confused. I think they may be relatively inexperienced.

> For one sport which will take up around 20 channels from time to time.

It *COULD* I guess, but that would be a rarity. At any rate, the
bandwidth isn't a problem for XM.


> What? Q3 of what year? Sirius' SAC was $229 and is coming down and is
> expected to be under $200 by year's end, and that is as of THIS year, 2004's
> 3Q conference call. Sirius also has a lower churn rate than XM.

1. Q3 this year.

2. SACs are not CPGA. CPGA is the fully-loaded figure (including
marketing, etc.) CPGA for XM is at $89 (SACs = $57). Sirius doesn't
report CPGA, but if you compute it it is around $450, vs. XM's $89.
Huge difference.

3. Sirius says they will get their annual figure under $200 by year
end. There is very little chance of that happening. I would say they
miss badly on this figure -- probably ending the year at $210-220.
For the record, they have been WELL ABOVE $200 all year long. Getting
under $200 will require them to sell a lot of gear and SACs well below
$200 to get to $200 for the full year. Even the analysts who like
Sirius don't believe they'll make this target.

At this point, Sirius shares are pretty badly overpriced, so I don't
own them. I would buy them again at $2, I think. XM is underpriced
and should see $40 by year end.

Okay, that's a lot of writing. I'll call it off at this point.
Clearly, you're a SIRI guy and I'm an XM guy. My bias is based on my
having owned subs to both for a long time and owning shares in both
off and on. Clearly, you favor the other guys, and I can accept that.
GLTY...

[Just Lou]

On 7 Nov 2004 09:47:51 -0800, david@timecalc.com (D Ray) wrote:

>There are lots of subjective views on which is better; true
>objectivity is difficult to find. But here are some simple guidelines
>to decide which is the best SDARS service (to be considered in order
>of appearance):
>
>a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.
>
>b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.
>
>c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.
>
>d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
>
>e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
>choice.
>
>f) If you have to have the best, smallest, most advanced hardware with
>the most exciting features, XM is your clear choice.
>
>g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
>with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.
>
>h) If you have to have Howard Stern, Sirius will be your choice in 15
>months.
>
>i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
>it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
>your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
>Sirius.
>
>j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
>limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
>Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
>generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
>the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.
>
>k) If you require eclectic music selection, XM is your clear choice.
>
>l) If you are looking for deeper playlists, XM is your clear choice.
>
>m) If you are looking for shallower (FM-like) playlists, both services
>have them but they dominate Sirius whereas XM playlists tend to be
>longer. Some people just want to hear the top-40 from every genre;
>Sirius is the clear choice for those.
>
>n) If you are looking for the potential for added services (not
>content, but services) XM has a dominant position today with
>"Navtraffic" and "WeatherWorx".
>
>o) If financial stability is important, XM is your clear choice.
>
>
>I have both and I'm highly biased toward XM because the music is
>better IMO.

Very nicely done. You can add another one to the list.

p) If you want to $3 or more less per month, then XM is the choice.

[PB]

"Just Lou" <nomail@nj.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5rg5p017erq4491vbl127eg10sgg6kpjlv@4ax.com...
> On 7 Nov 2004 09:47:51 -0800, david@timecalc.com (D Ray) wrote:
>
>>There are lots of subjective views on which is better; true
>>objectivity is difficult to find. But here are some simple guidelines
>>to decide which is the best SDARS service (to be considered in order
>>of appearance):
>>
>>a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.
>>
>>b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.
>>
>>c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.
>>
>>d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
>>
>>e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
>>choice.
>>
>>f) If you have to have the best, smallest, most advanced hardware with
>>the most exciting features, XM is your clear choice.
>>
>>g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
>>with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.
>>
>>h) If you have to have Howard Stern, Sirius will be your choice in 15
>>months.
>>
>>i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
>>it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
>>your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
>>Sirius.
>>
>>j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
>>limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
>>Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
>>generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
>>the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.
>>
>>k) If you require eclectic music selection, XM is your clear choice.
>>
>>l) If you are looking for deeper playlists, XM is your clear choice.
>>
>>m) If you are looking for shallower (FM-like) playlists, both services
>>have them but they dominate Sirius whereas XM playlists tend to be
>>longer. Some people just want to hear the top-40 from every genre;
>>Sirius is the clear choice for those.
>>
>>n) If you are looking for the potential for added services (not
>>content, but services) XM has a dominant position today with
>>"Navtraffic" and "WeatherWorx".
>>
>>o) If financial stability is important, XM is your clear choice.
>>
>>
>>I have both and I'm highly biased toward XM because the music is
>>better IMO.
>
> Very nicely done. You can add another one to the list.
>
> p) If you want to $3 or more less per month, then XM is the choice.

If your choice comes down to a dime a day(which would be gone if you wanted
to listen to XM online since there is an added fee for that), then you have
bigger problems.

I have Sirius and love it. That being said, I bet I would be happy with XM
as well. What I find funny is the attitudes here. We should all want both
services to survive. Without Sirius, I highly doubt XM would have gone
commercial free on their music, for example. Without Sirius, XM may have
never offered the option of listening online. Add to that the sports
packages each are picking up along with O&A, Stern, etc, and the competition
between the 2 should make each service better.

As somebody(forgive me for not remembering) pointed out on Siriusbackstage,
it shouldn't be "XM vs Sirius," but "satellite radio vs fm"

Anyway, it is great to have a satellite newsgroup.

[Mark S.]

> Very nicely done. You can add another one to the list.
>
> p) If you want to $3 or more less per month, then XM is the choice.

If you want any premium services or online streaming than they aren't any
cheaper :-) Imagine how much you'd pay if you wanted XM with O&A, Playboy
and online streaming! A lot more than $12.99/mo.

[Just Lou]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:43:57 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
wrote:

>
>> Very nicely done. You can add another one to the list.
>>
>> p) If you want to $3 or more less per month, then XM is the choice.
>
>If you want any premium services or online streaming than they aren't any
>cheaper :-) Imagine how much you'd pay if you wanted XM with O&A, Playboy
>and online streaming! A lot more than $12.99/mo.
>

Of course if you want Playboy or O&A, price doesn't matter since they
aren't offered on Sirius. If Sirius ever wants to be competitive, they
better come with some decent equipment. They offer nothing that can
compare to SkyFi2 or MyFi.

[Mark S.]

> I have Sirius and love it. That being said, I bet I would be happy with
> XM as well. What I find funny is the attitudes here. We should all want
> both services to survive. Without Sirius, I highly doubt XM would have
> gone commercial free on their music, for example. Without Sirius, XM may
> have never offered the option of listening online. Add to that the sports
> packages each are picking up along with O&A, Stern, etc, and the
> competition between the 2 should make each service better.
>
> As somebody(forgive me for not remembering) pointed out on
> Siriusbackstage, it shouldn't be "XM vs Sirius," but "satellite radio vs
> fm"

I agree 100%. I have both XM and Sirius, and while I tend to lean more
towards Sirius, I certainly do not feel hostile to XM. It's satellite radio
against the overcommercialized broadcast bands. Having competition within
the realm of satellite radio is always good. Neither company would benefit
from a monopoly. I'm sure both companies will break even within the next
few years. As I've said before, I urge anyone considering satellite radio
to try out both and see which service suits you best. Perhaps you'll end up
loving both and having both, too.

> Anyway, it is great to have a satellite newsgroup.

I can't say I disagree with you here, either. It seems to be taking off
quite well :-)

[Mark S.]

"Just Lou" <nomail@nj.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vlm5p01tmdupaefosjeq9l6ue76q3ltslk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:43:57 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Very nicely done. You can add another one to the list.
>>>
>>> p) If you want to $3 or more less per month, then XM is the choice.
>>
>>If you want any premium services or online streaming than they aren't any
>>cheaper :-) Imagine how much you'd pay if you wanted XM with O&A, Playboy
>>and online streaming! A lot more than $12.99/mo.
>>
>
> Of course if you want Playboy or O&A, price doesn't matter since they
> aren't offered on Sirius. If Sirius ever wants to be competitive, they
> better come with some decent equipment. They offer nothing that can
> compare to SkyFi2 or MyFi.

Well Sirius has Maxim radio coming on soon, and Howard Stern is starting Jan
'06 which I'd rather have than O&A anyways. Neither of these channels nor
any channel will ever cost extra on Sirius. XM has just started taking
inquiries on pre-orders for the MyFi and already XM fans are touting it as
the best thing ever? Personally, I wouldn't buy it. I've still got my Sony
DRN-XM01C that I bought for $50 :-) Not sure if I'd spend $350 on an XM
radio for what? Because it's smaller and it looks cool? It can record 5
hours. So can my mp3 player. The mp3 cd player in my car can play 128kbps
for what 12 hours on one disk I think? If I'm driving to the park to go
geocaching or whatever and I want to use the stream record feature I can't,
because it doesn't work with the car cradle. I would have had to record
during the 5 hours before I left. What if I was listening already at home,
what am I going to listen to what I just listened to the past 5 hours again?
Okay, it has an internal antenna. Maybe I'll jog facing southwest so I can
hold the signal since there are no terrestrial repeaters here ;-) I just
don't see it as something I'll be adding to my collection, especially at
that price. Now, finally XM radios can display more than 16 characters at a
time, although it's not quite working on all of the channels yet, plus
they've got song seek now. Where have I seen these features before? :-)
Like I said before, competition is good for both companies. If it wasn't
for Sirius, XM would probably still have commercials, 16 character
song/artist displays and no song seek.

[Tom Rutherford]

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:cmr7vq$c98$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:DR2kd.20747$Kt3.20601@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > Does either have American Public Radio? I've got NPR coming out the
> > wazoo,
> > but I miss APR. I want my "Echoes" back! :-(
>
> American Public Radio, now known as Public Radio International, is on both
> XM and Sirius. However, "Echoes" is only carried on XM. Here's the PRI
> schedules for both services:
>
> XM 133
> http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/listeners/xm_schedule.html
>
> Sirius 108
> http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/listeners/sirius_schedule.html
>
>
Thanks for the link, Mark, but holy insomnia, Batman! That's one I'd
definitely have to time shift, which means that, since I don't have a
digital tape machine, I'd either have to set my computer up to record it all
in .wav format (anybody got a 200-gig hard drive I can have real cheap?), or
record it to cassette with a 14kHz rolloff on the top end, and I think 30Hz
on the bottom. Not acceptable. :-( Well, if I get XM to work, I'll figure
out something.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0411091154.1e23625d@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
> > > limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
> > > Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
> > > generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
> > > the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.
> >
> > Does either have American Public Radio? I've got NPR coming out the
wazoo,
> > but I miss APR. I want my "Echoes" back! :-(
>
> Echoes is carried on XM. I'm not familiar with it, but it is listed
> on the XM schedule as being from Public Radio International. Here is
> the XM Public Radio schedule:
>
> http://xmradio.com/programming/xm_feature.jsp?ch=133&id=452#wbur

Thanks, D Ray. I guess APR became (or merged with) PRI while I wasn't
looking. :-) Okay, this is one more reason I'm gonna be really bummed if I
can't get XM to work in this concrete and steel box.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[D Ray]

> I have Sirius and love it. That being said, I bet I would be happy with XM
> as well. What I find funny is the attitudes here. We should all want both
> services to survive. Without Sirius, I highly doubt XM would have gone
> commercial free on their music, for example. Without Sirius, XM may have
> never offered the option of listening online. Add to that the sports
> packages each are picking up along with O&A, Stern, etc, and the competition
> between the 2 should make each service better.

I agree that XM wouldn't have gone commercial free without the push
from Sirius. But honestly, the commercials were inconsequential in
the first place. Both services will eventually (10 years hence) be
using commercials.

XM Online would have happened either way. The real thing Sirius did
was to move the content deals up, which they really did as a fairly
desperate act to get subscribers. Neither company wanted to be
blowing money on content at this point, but Sirius really had no
choice. They continue to face major financial problems, but the
content has bought them some time.

The content may make the services better. However, I admit to being
an interested investor first, although I've advocated the product
since day one. And the massive expenditures on content have made the
industry weaker. XM wanted MLB anyway, but it made more sense a
couple years down the road. They were forced to move forward now
because Sirius was starting to have a perceptable advantage in the
sports content arena. Today, the advantage, if there is one, is
likely with XM, since MLB is really the most listenable of the major
sports.

> As somebody(forgive me for not remembering) pointed out on Siriusbackstage,
> it shouldn't be "XM vs Sirius," but "satellite radio vs fm"
>

It has become XM vs. Sirius because everyone likes a good horserace.
While XM looks like Secretariat at the moment, over time, Sirius
should close the gap a little. To me, XM has the feel of a Lexus
while Sirius has the feel of a Ford. They are both far better than
the Yugo that is FM...

[MICHELLE KNISLEY]

"Just Lou" <nomail@nj.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5rg5p017erq4491vbl127eg10sgg6kpjlv@4ax.com...
> On 7 Nov 2004 09:47:51 -0800, david@timecalc.com (D Ray) wrote:
>
> >There are lots of subjective views on which is better; true
> >objectivity is difficult to find. But here are some simple guidelines
> >to decide which is the best SDARS service (to be considered in order
> >of appearance):
> >
> >a) If you have a GM, Honda, or Toyota, XM is probably your choice.
> >
> >b) If you have a Chrysler, Sirius is probably your choice.
> >
> >c) If you have to have NFL, Sirius is your choice.
> >
> >d) If you have to have MLB, XM is your choice.
> >
> >e) If you have to have portability (like a walkman), XM is the only
> >choice.
> >
> >f) If you have to have the best, smallest, most advanced hardware with
> >the most exciting features, XM is your clear choice.
> >
> >g) If you have to have College Sports, XM is most likely your choice
> >with 3 full conferences, but Sirius does have about 24 teams.
> >
> >h) If you have to have Howard Stern, Sirius will be your choice in 15
> >months.
> >
> >i) If you have to have a Shock Jock, and you [properly] recognize that
> >it is not about the jock but is, in fact, about the shock, then XM is
> >your choice since you can get more shock now with O&A than with
> >Sirius.
> >
> >j) If you have to have public radio, it is a tie. Sirius has a
> >limited subset of NPR, but XM is blazing a new trail with XMPR and Bob
> >Edwards. If you're pissed that NPR fired Bob Edwards, choose XM. But
> >generally, public radio should not be a criterion, since neither has
> >the shows you really want. Choose on some other basis.
> >
> >k) If you require eclectic music selection, XM is your clear choice.
> >
> >l) If you are looking for deeper playlists, XM is your clear choice.
> >
> >m) If you are looking for shallower (FM-like) playlists, both services
> >have them but they dominate Sirius whereas XM playlists tend to be
> >longer. Some people just want to hear the top-40 from every genre;
> >Sirius is the clear choice for those.
> >
> >n) If you are looking for the potential for added services (not
> >content, but services) XM has a dominant position today with
> >"Navtraffic" and "WeatherWorx".
> >
> >o) If financial stability is important, XM is your clear choice.
> >
> >
> >I have both and I'm highly biased toward XM because the music is
> >better IMO.
>
> Very nicely done. You can add another one to the list.
>
> p) If you want to $3 or more less per month, then XM is the choice.

[Sirius_Rich]

D Ray Wrote:
>
> It has become XM vs. Sirius because everyone likes a good horserace.
> While XM looks like Secretariat at the moment, over time, Sirius
> should close the gap a little. To me, XM has the feel of a Lexus
> while Sirius has the feel of a Ford. They are both far better than
> the Yugo that is FM...

Funny, I was thinking along with many others that Sirius is the race
horse and XM is the plowhorse.

Sirius provides much in house content and original content. iTunes is
even selling Sirius produced music. To me there is no comparison of
NCAA sports. XM may have the PAC 10 and the Big 10, but you cannot
listen to USC play UCLA or Michigan play Ohio State on XM, they are
Sirius partners. Sirius carries the top 26 NCAA teams. XM does not.
Talk and entertainment, no contest, once again Sirius provides superior
content.

Sirius is closing the gap. With recent surveys taken during the
Christmas shopping season, the consumer said Sirius by a 2 to 1 margin
for any new satrad purchases. Sirius outsold XM (retail) for the month
of November, December numbers are still out.

As far as an investment choice just look at 2004's charts. End of
story.
--
Sirius_Rich
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by Sirius_Rich