XM vs Sirrius VHS vs Beta

[Truth]

> I know many who feel the way you do about Sirius, but there are many who
> feel the same way about XM.

I don't know anyone that feels that XM has a more limited playlist than Sirrius
or less of a selection of music and formats. Who are these people you know?

> It really comes down to a matter of personal
> preferance.

Right, some people like Football and Sports, and some like Music over sports.

> I like things about both services and that's why I have both.

I can't find anything about Sirrius that I like, including the way their
satellites orbit. I mean if at least they had something better somewhere, but
I don't see it. They don't even have as cool of a selection of radios as XM
does. Sirrius is in FORDS while XM is with GM.

I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is a
minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.

> I do keep the XM in the house because of reception issues with XM around
> here in the car (as in it doesn't work!).

You are not doing something right then. I keep the antenna INSIDE the car on
the front dash, meaning many times some of the metal roof is blocking part of
the sky from the antenna, but yet I have never had a problem yet, I get all
three bars on the signal meter all the time.

> Sirius also has a vast selection,
> particularly in the Rock category

I listened again this weekend, and all of them had on the same format, classic
rock songs, on every channel, songs that are overplayed on the radio and no one
wants to hear anymore. Songs we all already own on CDs, but can never play
those CDs anymore, because FM radio has made us sick of them.

> but Sirius overall tends not to go as deep
> as XM.

Not deep, just a bigger wider playlist, and stuff FM doesn't play. If you
want DEEP, then XM has a "Deep Cuts" channel, but that just sucks, because it is
just songs no one knows or cares about. But XM plays songs that were hits,
that everyone knows, but are just not allowed to be played on FM radio anymore
for some reason. Every song on XM is like: "WOW! I remember this song!
COOL! What the FUCK is wrong with FM radio and Clear Channel that they never
play these songs anymore?!"

With Sirrius, and again this weekend listening to Sirrius, it is like: "God
dammit, same classic rock crap and overplayed songs I can get on FM and don't
bother to tune in."

> Some consider this to be a good thing, some do not. Some people
> like to listen to the whole CD, some people find all too often they buy CD's
> and only like one or two songs off of it. If you are the latter, you'd like
> Sirius better.

Actually, I usually never find more than one or two good songs per CD and prefer
XM.

But the one or two good songs from a lot of good CDs are not being played on
Sirrius, and they are being played on XM. That's the difference.

For those that like all the songs on CDs, then XM has DEEP CUTS for those type
of people too, but I don't care for that channel, except when Dr Demento is
played on it, another thing Sirrius does not have.

XM also has Art Bell and Coast to Coast, which Sirrius does not.

> There are times I'm in the mood for XM and times I'm in the mood for Sirius.
> Personally, I find myself listening to Sirius more often than XM, but I can
> absolutely see why someone else may find the opposite true.

Considering most of the channels and programs I like on XM are not available on
Sirrius, I don't see why I would ever be listening to Sirrius at all.

One reason for trying again, was that in the begging, Sirrius was supposed to
have superior sound quality than XM, but since, reports are now that XM is
superior in sound quality to Sirrius. So I wanted to hear for myself and make
the determination which one sounds better. Know what I found?

BOTH of them sound like crap! Neither is better, both SUCK in terms of audio
quality.

What they need to do, is get rid of all the sports, Mexican, and weather traffic
channels and give some of that bandwidth to the stations people actually listen
to.

People into sports buy big screen televisions, not so they can tune into the
radio to watch the game, and illegal aliens don't have credit cards to buy or
subscribe to these services either, so no need for the Mexican channels. And
the number one reason to get XM or Sirrius, is to get away from traffic reports
and weather interruptions, so no one is going to listen and tune into a channel
that has nothing BUT weather and traffic! Especially with the crap poor
quality they come in on! I can not even UNDERSTAND what the hell they are
saying on those channels the audio quality is SOOOO poor on those channels!

> I'll be the first to say that neither are CD quality.

Neither are CASSETTE quality! And I am NOT exaggerating either. In fact,
after listening to satellite radio for a few hours, then switching to an FM
station, you REALLY REALLY appreciate the drastic improvement in audio quality
that the FM stations have, even WITH the over processing many have!

In fact, I even prefer the undistorted sound of Art Bell over AM radio than
listening to the distortion satellite radio adds to talk programs because they
feel talk programs don't need as much bandwidth as the music channels and make
all talk shows sound like even the host of the show is talking over a digital
cell phone!

> However, I'm willing
> to sacrifice some sound quality/resolution for selection.

I would rather get rid of half the channels, and improve the quality on the
channels people actually listen to. We don't need dozens of Mexican
channels, Sports and weather channels. In fact, no matter which market you
live in, no one will ever be listening to MOST of the weather and traffic
channels, so what a waste of bandwidth! Get rid of them all! If anyone
wants weather or traffic, they can tune to an AM station and get it instantly.

> I'm not going to
> argue against your comparison of FM sound quality against satellite radio
> either. I know many would say you're crazy, but I'm also a believer that
> analog has the ability to sound much better than digital.

There is nothing to argue, it is just a fact. Too many of the channels on
XM and Sirrius sound like digital cell phones with that watery distortion sound
so well known with the crap cell phones today. I still have my cell phone from
the 80s and it sounds just like talking over a regular phone line because it is
analog, not digital.

Technology peaked in the 80s. Now everything in audio and video quality is
going downhill and getting worse again.

> Again, to me this
> is a tradeoff. We trade in the static we get if there is a less than
> perfect signal, the multipath interference, the overcompression some
> stations have, co-channel interference and fading for a steady all or
> nothing digital signal, along with comes some artifacting.

Same thing with a less than perfect Satellite signal, in fact, even worse.
With analog, you can still hear the program with a weak signal, but with
satellite and digital, it goes completely silent and you hear nothing. I
would rather have a weak analog signal I could listen to than nothing to listen
to at all.

> I've come
> accustomed to the sound quality on satellite radio and I'm used to it;

See that is the problem. People are getting used to the crap quality, then
companies keep making it worse and worse to save more money so long as the
majority never complain about it and get "used to it" and accept crap and be
happy as the subscription rates will increase over the years and the quality
will get worse.

I will NEVER get used to the horrible video quality of broadcasts today, and all
the lip synching problems on all news clips today. Everytime Larry King, for
instance, shows a video clip, the audio is NEVER in sync with the video and it
has been like this for a few YEARS already. No need for them to fix it so long
as none of you care or you all just get USED to it.

It SUCKS. And it is pathetic that video quality and broadcasts in the 80s
sounded and looked better than they do today in the year 2004.

If you would have told people back in the 80s, that audio and video quality
would be much worse in the year 2004, they would probably have laughed at you,
yet see how it is actually true and fact.

> it's
> not bad enough for it to bother me. The average Joe will agree, but
> audiophiles may cringe listening to it.

Audiophiles will not listen to it at all. Hopefully just normal regular
people will complain until they improve it. We should all be willing to give
up all the sports, weather, traffic, and mexican channels in exchange for better
quality on the channels we all actually listen to.

> > Listening to Stern now on FM, it is going to be a VERY BIG disappointment
> > listening to his show via bad MP3 sounding audio, although the trade off
> > is that
> > you can hear him say cunt and fucker.
>
> Aha, speaking of tradeoffs, there's one. He won't be held down by the FCC
> anymore. It shall be interesting!

On Sirrius, no one will be able to HEAR him, so he will be like a tree falling
in the middle of a forest where no one will know if he makes a sound or not.

And instead of people just accepting he has to go to satellite and getting used
to the fact that the audio quality of his show will get much worse, they should
all have been outraged and protested so he could say what ever he wants to say
now on the radio and we would not have to take ANY tradeoff.

Taking a tradeoff, is letting big rich people change things and the majority
sitting back and letting them get away with it.

But since the majority of you all go along with them and never protest, the
minority always has to live with the crap the majority forces us to have because
they don't have any balls to stand up and complain as nature intended. The
way a species gets extinct, is by sitting back, and never fighting.

> I do encourage everyone to go to your local best buy or whatever and take a
> careful listen to both.

Yes indeed.

> Ignore what the sales rep has to say;

NEVER listen to a sales rep for anything. And don't do what I seen so many
people at the stores do, choose XM or Sirrius because they liked one radio
better than the other on display at the store, and then just took either XM or
Sirrius depending on which went with that radio.

Do the research on everything BEFORE you go to the store, so when the salesmoron
approaches you, you can tell him which radio you want, because you already know
everything about it, and know much more than the salesmoron knows.

> few are
> knowledgable and many are biased due to SPIFFS giving them an alterior
> motive to selling you a particular brand over the other.

Yes my stupid friend fell for this when buying from Best Buy. He asked which
speakers were the best, and was told: "These are what we sell the most of, they
are the most popular" so he bought those. When they sounded like crap, I
told him they WERE crap. The only reason they sold better than the rest of
the crap at Best Buy, is because of all the crap they sell, they were the best,
but they were just the best of all the crap THEY sold. You don't buy
speakers from Best Buy, because they don't sell good speakers at Best Buy.
Period.

> Some will come to
> the conclusion that they will like XM better, some will like Sirius better.

The facts show that not many are finding Sirrius better. Look at the
subscriber base of both services! The few that end up getting Sirrius,
listened to the salesmoron at the stores and didn't do the research themselves
before buying.

> Also, both services have free online streaming trials.

So they always say, but it is either not true many times, or very difficult to
sign up for, or requires giving email addresses and personal information.

> While the sound
> quality is worse than what it is from the satellites, it will give you an
> idea

No, it therefore can NEVER give you an idea of what the product sounds like at
all, because it is not the same. Best thing is to find people at work or
neighbors that have them, and listen to them that way. Stores are too noisy,
you can't really turn things up loud enough to really hear them, or they have
crap speakers connected so you don't know if it is the radio or the speakers
that sound so bad.

> of what's on each channel and if you can put up with the
> programming/DJ's or not.
>
> > Buying Sirrius just for Stern is not worth the money. Buying XM without
> > Stern
> > is still worth the money.
> >
> > Having Stern on XM would be the best of both worlds.
>
> Since I'm already a Sirius subscriber, obviously I think Sirius without
> Stern is worth the money

I don't see how you can say that. You must like football. Or hearing the
same overplayed songs on FM stations now that you already own on CDs anyway.

> and having Stern added in less than 14 months is
> just another added benefit, and I'm glad I don't have to pay $2 extra for
> him.

Right, you have to pay $3 extra for him.

XM $10 a month versus Sirrius $13 a month.

Even with paying a $2 subscription fee on XM for Stern, you would still be
saving money. But if he went on XM without an extra fee, WOW the money you
save!

> I've heard from many XM subscribers who either never before took a
> good listen to Sirius before and those who have and liked both but went to
> XM, and the Stern addition has them switched over.

And the fools that they are, they go out and buy Sirrius radios NOW.

Why is that foolish? For TWO reasons.....

1) Sirrius may not even be AROUND by the time Stern is out of his contract with
FM, and you would be stuck with a Sirrius radio instead of the better XM
service.

2) Even IF Sirrius is still around in a year, you would be stuck with an
inferior radio with less features and poorer quality, than if you waiting until
he was actually ON Sirrius and could then select from the models of radios at
that time that are going to blow away anything available now.

So why buy a Sirrius radio now if you are getting it to listen to Stern?

In fact, the very reason so many people have XM radios now, is because Stern
promoted them so highly on his program and led listeners to believe he might be
going to XM. Remember?

So now many people are buying Sirrius, and then what happens when they fail and
Howard goes over to XM instead?

WAIT until he is actually ON one before buying the radio! Unless you want
what is on satellite now, in which case, get XM. It is better all around.
Better music channels, better talk shows, better satellite system in space,
better reception, better and cooler radios available for XM service.

> >> AND you get free online streaming
> >
> > Even for free, would never use it. Slows down the computer and internet
> > use,
> > much better to listen over a radio next to the computer like I do with XM.
>
> Hmm, I use a P166MMX thinkpad laptop w/wireless lan hooked up to a ghetto
> blaster to listen to Sirius via the streaming upstairs and that works just
> fine.

But again, you are not into good sound quality, you can get used to how bad that
sounds.

I am used to listening to FM over good receivers, even at the computer or desk,
Tivoli Model One or Boston Receptor. I could never drop down to online
streaming or listen to the crap quality boom boxes available today.

> I do have Rogers High Speed cable internet, though. A 32k/sec stream
> would be quite detrimental to the thoroughput on a 56k modem, I'd imagine.

If I send you crap audio over the best and fastest connection, what do you end
up with?

> > The worst part about Sirrius is the inferior reception, due to their
> > traveling
> > satellites. XM's stationary satellites are always in the same place and
> > you
> > can always count on them being there.
> >
> > Rock solid reception, even indoors with the antenna on the floor in the
> > middle
> > of the room not near any windows.
>
> This really depends on the person. I've heard it both ways.

I am a broadcast engineer, so I know what I am talking about. The people that
say it the other way, is because they didn't have something hooked up right, had
a defective radio with one service, or god knows what.

I assure you, the reception with XM is far better than with Sirrius under same
fair comparison conditions. XMs satellites stay put and you always have two
you can count on, while Sirrius satellites fly all over the place and aren't
always there for you. They need THREE satellites because of this in the
hopes that one will be around for you, but they are constantly moving, you don't
know where the hell to point your antenna to, and if you did, in a few minutes
it would be somewhere else. Very bad system.

> Some people
> can't get an XM signal even in their windowsill but can get a Sirius signal
> penetrating through their roof.

I couldn't get an XM signal in the window either. Too much metal around the
windows and in the wall. So I put it AWAY from the window, in the middle of
the room on the floor and suddenly it came in full strength. Now I make sure
never to put the antenna near any windows and I never have any problems.

> get XM great in the centre of their house. XM does have more terrestrial
> repeaters

Another plus, but I don't have any in my area and depend just on the two
satellites. The signal strength on BOTH satellites always comes in strong
(you can put many radios like the Delphis in special test modes to actually
measure each satellite separately) and I only need ONE to get a good signal, but
I get both, even indoors.

> supplemented by terrestrial repeaters in cities more often. 99% of the
> time, if you can manage getting the Sirius antenna on the roof, you will get
> a signal.

I should HOPE so! But how many people realistically can get these antennas
on their roof?

Another reason for going with XM, is that I don't have to put an antenna on the
outside of my car anywhere, no holes to drill, no installation, I just plop the
tiny 1 inch antenna INSIDE the car, usually by the front or back window, and I
get great reception. Try doing that with a Sirius radio!

> Sirius' satellites do move, but there is always one in a loop
> around the centre of Canada so if you can tilt towards the north or find a
> window facing that way you should have good luck with it.

Why jump through all those hoops if I don't have to? XM is rock solid
without playing any games or waiting for a satellite to come around. They
always have two right over you.

> Since they move
> it may take a few tries to find a spot that doesn't cut out at various times
> during the day whereas with XM if you find a spot that works, it will always
> work.

Now think about this. If Sirius is the type of company that made such a stupid
decision like this with satellites, what kind of decisions are they going to
make regarding programming?

Just the name alone. Sirius. Stupid! XM was a much better idea.

> > Sirrius, you can hardly keep the signal outside in a car, as many people
> > complain about.
>
> Overall throughout North America, I've had less trouble keeping a Sirius
> signal in the car than an XM signal. XM tends to get through tree canopied
> areas slightly better in my opinion, but buildings, mountains and rock cuts
> on the highway Sirius gets over top of and XM does not.

No, you were just lucky at that minute that a Sirius satellite was over you, go
to the same place again at another time and then you won't get Sirius at all.

> > Also, Sirrius has a channel dedicated to homosexuals, XM does not.
>
> Well I'm sure the LBGT community finds this channel to be an asset. I'm
> straight and don't care for the channel much myself,

Think about it, MOST people on the planet don't care for that channel, so what a
waste of bandwidth. What next, a channel for every other birth defect
too? Channel for people without arms?

> but I know of other
> straight people who enjoy the channel.

That's a big red flag that they are not straight at all, but closet homosexuals
trying to promote the channel with the deception: "See, even us normal people
like gay stuff." Don't believe it.

> You can kind of liken it to these
> gay comedies that are on TV; a lot of people find them funny

Yes, homosexuals. The rest of us get sick to our stomach thinking about it.

This 10 year FAD of homosexuals being "cool" and in "fashion" is finally
over. Even before an election, both candidates, who would normally avoid
talking at all about a controversial subject and would not want to alienate ANY
potential voters, BOTH said they were outright against gay marriage.

I am glad to see that we no longer have to be afraid to say so, without fear of
being called "politically incorrect" anymore. It is now politically correct
to admit that homosexuality is not normal, it is a birth defect, and that is
fine, but it is not something we need to PROMOTE and put on PARADE and force
EVERYONE to accept.

You don't see any channels with people who like to have sex with their family
members either, people keep that stuff to themselves, as it should be.

> and thus also
> like the programming on OutQ. Sirius' latest customer survey focused
> largely on OutQ which makes me think that Sirius is considering dumping the
> channel.

That would be the first smart move they made. Besides, no matter HOW much
people want to pretend the channel is great and everyone supports it, in REALITY
no one listens to it and they won't make any money from it. Just like the
big influx of Mexican stations on the AM, FM and TV dials. Everyone jumped in
and did it, dozens of Mexican stations on the dials, but now they realize they
CAN'T MAKE ANY MONEY with these stations catering to criminal illegal aliens,
instead of the legal citizens that live in the country, a country that just
happens to speak ENGLISH, not Mexican. So now FINALLY, these stations are
all changing back to English language.

I hope and pray that Sirrius goes black, and we stop this VHS against BETA
battle all over again. We have a winner, especially after this Christmas
season, and Howard and everyone should be going with XM not Sirrius.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <419272DF.9B221186@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> I mean, where is the one thing [Sirius] has over XM?

Two NPR streams and one PRI stream. Plus NPR programming on at least
two other - non NPR - streams.

Two left-wing talk streams and two right-wing talk streams.

No ClearChannel invovlement.

[Truth]

> > I mean, where is the one thing [Sirius] has over XM?
>
> Two NPR streams and one PRI stream.

One thing that reminds me of that I did not consider, I believe Sirius
carries Car Talk, one of the best programs on radio, and the XM NPR channel
does not.

Ok, one for Sirrius.

> Two left-wing talk streams and two right-wing talk streams.

That's not a plus, I could do without any of either propaganda. They
should take those down, and put up one channel that actually reads of
political FACTS instead of opinions and propaganda.

> No ClearChannel invovlement.

Oh, they are involved everywhere. In fact, they already have the
slogan: "Clear Channel Worldwide"

There is no were to go to get away from them. Clear Channel is a company
headed owned and run by the FCC/US government.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <41927C1B.24B72C16@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> There is no were to go to get away from them. Clear Channel is a company
> headed owned and run by the FCC/US government.

That's about right. Lord help us when they merge with Sinclair.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <419272DF.9B221186@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > I like things about both services and that's why I have both.
>
> I can't find anything about Sirrius that I like, including the way their
> satellites orbit. I mean if at least they had something better somewhere,
> but
> I don't see it. They don't even have as cool of a selection of radios as
> XM
> does. Sirrius is in FORDS while XM is with GM.
>
> I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is a
> minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.

Sirius has better rural coverage.
Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
Sirius has far better rock music stations.
Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.

-john-

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

[Anthony Cumia]

http://xmradio.com/polk/index.jsp

[Truth]

> > There is no were to go to get away from them. Clear Channel is a company
> > headed owned and run by the FCC/US government.
>
> That's about right. Lord help us when they merge with Sinclair.

There is a good chance Infinity will be forced to sell all they have to Clear
Channel as well.

If any mergers happen, watch for Clear Channel to change their name again since
the reputation of their name is already widely known. They have been
Evergreen Media, AM/FM Inc, Clear Channel, and who knows what name they pick with
the next merger.

[Truth]

> > I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is a
> > minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.
>
> Sirius has better rural coverage.

Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM. False. XM also has
more repeaters so this is not a concern anyway even if it were true.

> Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.

FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than XM or
Sirrius, so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I have a choice
to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM for the
superior sound quality.

> Sirius has far better rock music stations.

That is complete rubbish. No one into rock music will agree with that at all.

> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.

Yes, all they play is stuff that FM radio has overplayed to death and we don't
want to hear anymore.

XM plays stuff we have all heard of, but for some reason, FM radio does not ever
play anymore.

They have a much larger library, with far fewer repeats.

Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius has, and
understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!

The majority of people obviously see that XM is much better.

[Snake]

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:101120041536055161%john@johnweeks.com...
> In article <419272DF.9B221186@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>
>> > I like things about both services and that's why I have both.
>>
>> I can't find anything about Sirrius that I like, including the way their
>> satellites orbit. I mean if at least they had something better
>> somewhere,
>> but
>> I don't see it. They don't even have as cool of a selection of radios
>> as
>> XM
>> does. Sirrius is in FORDS while XM is with GM.
>>
>> I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is
>> a
>> minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.
>
> Sirius has better rural coverage.
> Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
> Sirius has far better rock music stations.
> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>
> -john-
>
> --
> ====================================================================
> John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ====================================================================

Isn't one of the points of listning to the radio to hear artists you've
never heard of?

Expand your world. There is more out there than Led Zeppelin. Discover it.

Snake

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <41929F15.12D704AE@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > > I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is
> > > a
> > > minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.
> >
> > Sirius has better rural coverage.
>
> Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM. False. XM also
> has
> more repeaters so this is not a concern anyway even if it were true.

You can look at all the books you want to. I have both XM and Sirius
in my truck, and I know that Sirius works better in the rural area.
The XM satellites are lower in the sky, and they get blocked out by
obstructions on the ground and mountains. I run the Great River Road
often, and XM is blocked out for 1/2 hour at a time, while Sirius only
loses signal for two 15 second hits.

> > Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
>
> FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than XM or
> Sirrius, so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I have a
> choice
> to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM for the
> superior sound quality.

A lot of good FM will do when you are out in the middle of Left Armpit,
Oklahoma. Even traveling in Minnesota, I have to change FM stations
every 20 to 30 minutes to keep up with Minnesota Public Radio, and even
though they have 30 transmitters, there are big gaps in the coverage.
That kind of sucks when you are trying to listen to a show like "Wait,
Wait".

> > Sirius has far better rock music stations.
>
> That is complete rubbish. No one into rock music will agree with that at
> all.

I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic
Rewind. XM has only 1, Top Tracks. If a bum song comes up on Sirius,
I have 2 other choices. If a bum song comes up on Top Tracks, I am
stuck. Plus Top Tracks tends to play the same few artists, while Sirius
plays a bigger variety from their catelog.

> > Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>
> Yes, all they play is stuff that FM radio has overplayed to death and we don't
> want to hear anymore.
> XM plays stuff we have all heard of, but for some reason, FM radio does not
> ever
> play anymore.
> They have a much larger library, with far fewer repeats.

XM has all kinds of rubbish that nobody ever heard of. They do this
so they don't have to pay as much royalties for the better and more
popular songs. Just listen to one of the decades channels...I was
there in the 80's, and I never heard of 2/3 of what they plan on 80's
on 8.

> Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius has, and
> understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!

Are you sure that you are not a TROLL? I worked for the biggest
retailer of satellite radios, and I got both systems the day that
they were made available to the public. I had XM for over a year
before I was able to get Sirius. Despite Sirius being late to the
market, they are gaining speed faster than XM. At the current
rates, Sirius and XM will be even in the market in a few years.
Just like Direct TV was out long before Dish, but now Dish is the
system of choice.

> The majority of people obviously see that XM is much better.

The majority of the people don't give a rip. Less than 1% of
the population has either system.

-john-

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

[Just Lou]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:36:05 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>
>Sirius has better rural coverage.
>Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
>Sirius has far better rock music stations.
>Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>
>-john-


Now this is funny...

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41929F15.12D704AE@sucks.com...
>> > I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me
>> > is a
>> > minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me
>> > too.
>>
>> Sirius has better rural coverage.
>
> Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM. False. XM
> also has
> more repeaters so this is not a concern anyway even if it were true.

The orbit is exactly what gives Sirius better rural/mobile coverage compared
to XM. XM has more repeateres because their satellites are so low in the
sky that there are more obstructions which block the signal whereas Sirius'
sats are often straight up so nothing can block them unless you're under a
gas station canopy or in a tunnel, but the point is moot because repeaters
are in urban coverage areas, not rural.

>> Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
>
> FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than XM
> or
> Sirrius, so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I have
> a choice
> to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM for
> the
> superior sound quality.

You can't get NPR and PRI on FM or AM everywhere. We have neither here. In
fact, there are many areas into which I drive where I cannot receive
anything on AM or FM at all during the day. You cannot compare what happens
to be on FM in your market to what's available to the rest of the continent
which is exactly the area that satellite radio covers.

>> Sirius has far better rock music stations.
>
> That is complete rubbish. No one into rock music will agree with that
> at all.

I disagree, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

>> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>
> Yes, all they play is stuff that FM radio has overplayed to death and we
> don't
> want to hear anymore.

XM has plenty of channels just for that, like Top 20 on 20, MTV Radio, VH1
Radio, and KISS-FM which actually used to simulcast an FM station in L.A.

> XM plays stuff we have all heard of, but for some reason, FM radio does
> not ever
> play anymore.

I've had times where I've listened to XM and not recognized one song for an
entire hour. The songs I would recognize would be one's I thought were
rubbish.

> They have a much larger library, with far fewer repeats.

Sirius' library is plenty sufficient. Check this link out, you can see the
times and channels your favourite song or artist was played on Sirius:
http://www.itsonsirius.com/

> Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius has,
> and
> understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!
> The majority of people obviously see that XM is much better.

Sirius' satellites were launched first, XM rolled out nationwide 8 months
before Sirius rolled out, so you've got it backwards.

[Mark S.]

"Snake" <dmsnake@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:w%ykd.3496$w.1222@trnddc02...
>
> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
> news:101120041536055161%john@johnweeks.com...
>> In article <419272DF.9B221186@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > I like things about both services and that's why I have both.
>>>
>>> I can't find anything about Sirrius that I like, including the way their
>>> satellites orbit. I mean if at least they had something better
>>> somewhere,
>>> but
>>> I don't see it. They don't even have as cool of a selection of
>>> radios as
>>> XM
>>> does. Sirrius is in FORDS while XM is with GM.
>>>
>>> I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me
>>> is a
>>> minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.
>>
>> Sirius has better rural coverage.
>> Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
>> Sirius has far better rock music stations.
>> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>>
>> -john-
>
> Isn't one of the points of listning to the radio to hear artists you've
> never heard of?
>
> Expand your world. There is more out there than Led Zeppelin. Discover it.

To me, it's not artists I've never heard, but B sides of artists I've heard
of but songs I never care to hear. Now XM isn't always like this, but I get
an awful lot more songs like this on XM than I do on Sirius.

[Bob Haberkost]

"Snake" <dmsnake@verizon.net> wrote in message news:w%ykd.3496$w.1222@trnddc02...

> Isn't one of the points of listning to the radio to hear artists you've never heard
> of?

> Expand your world. There is more out there than Led Zeppelin. Discover it.

While I certainly don't disagree with you, most people don't listen to the radio that
way. Rather explains why Bush won.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Mark S.]

> While I certainly don't disagree with you, most people don't listen to the
> radio that way. Rather explains why Bush won.

Uh oh, you're opening a whole new can of worms here!!! :-)

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <kfg5p05vg1s632icodv66tv474ci74p7u2@4ax.com>, Just Lou
<nomail@nj.rr.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:36:05 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
> <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sirius has better rural coverage.
> >Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
> >Sirius has far better rock music stations.
> >Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
> >
> >-john-
>
>
> Now this is funny...

In what way is it funny? Funny that someone finally pointed
out the truth? Funny that XM seems to get all the press while
Sirius delivers a superior product?

-john-

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

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <w%ykd.3496$w.1222@trnddc02>, Snake <dmsnake@verizon.net>
wrote:

> > Sirius has far better rock music stations.
> > Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.

> Isn't one of the points of listning to the radio to hear artists you've
> never heard of?
>
> Expand your world. There is more out there than Led Zeppelin. Discover it.

It depends on my mood. There are times when I want the old familiar,
and other times when I want adventure. It is nice to have that choice
without having to listen to the same 6 CD's all the time since I
never remember to change them out in my truck.

-john-

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

[Just Lou]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:51:30 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <kfg5p05vg1s632icodv66tv474ci74p7u2@4ax.com>, Just Lou
><nomail@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:36:05 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
>> <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Sirius has better rural coverage.
>> >Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
>> >Sirius has far better rock music stations.
>> >Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>> >
>> >-john-
>>
>>
>> Now this is funny...
>
>In what way is it funny? Funny that someone finally pointed
>out the truth? Funny that XM seems to get all the press while
>Sirius delivers a superior product?
>

Buy up that stock. It's still less than $4 a share. Maybe someday
you'll be rich.... If you enjoy paying more money to listen to the
same songs over and over again, on inferior equipment, more power to
you.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<41929F15.12D704AE@sucks.com>...
> > > I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is a
> > > minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.
> >
> > Sirius has better rural coverage.
>
> Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM. False. XM also has
> more repeaters so this is not a concern anyway even if it were true.

We already went over this last week, asswipe. Remember back when you
tried to claim that the XM satellites were in orbit above the U.S. and
then you sheepishly agreed with me after I corrected your false
statement?

Now that we have heard the false bullshit (again) from "Truth", I'll
repeat the facts:

The XM satellites are at ALL times in orbit way down south directly
over the equator, while at ALL times there is one or more Sirius
satellites higher (i.e. directly above North America) in the sky than
the XM satellites. No XM satellite is ever directly over the United
States. XM satellites never move from their position directly over
the equator, therefore the XM satellites appear as low as only 35
degrees above the horizon from some parts of the United States. It
doesn't take much of a Mountain, or a hill, or just a building to
block the view of a satellite that is only 35 degrees above the
horizon, hence the need for all those XM repeaters.

Because XM's satellites are so much lower in the sky than the Sirius
satellites, XM has a need for repeaters in places that Sirius doesn't.

Bragging about how many repeaters XM has (needs is a better word), is
like a low power broadcast TV station bragging about how many people
watch it on cable because of all the areas where people can't pick up
its shitty signal.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<41929F15.12D704AE@sucks.com>...
> Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius has, and
> understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!
>
> The majority of people obviously see that XM is much better.


This is more undisputable proof that "Truth" is a bullshit artist who
just makes "facts" up to promote XM.

Who the fuck are you trying to kid, "Truth"?????

Anyone who doesn't already know can easily find out that XM had it's
service launch in September of 2001 while Sirius didn't roll out
service until the summer of 2002.

Two years after XM's service rollout, XM had approximately the same
number of subscribers as Sirius does now (just over 2 years after the
Sirius service rollout). The difference is, XM had a satellite radio
monopoly for half of it's first two years, and Sirius had to compete
against XM during its entire first two years. So without the initial
monopoly advantage that XM had, but in the same amount of time, Sirius
was able to acquire about the same number of subscribers that XM
acquired in its first two years of service.

Beware of the bullshit that "Truth" spews about XM and Sirius. He
appears to be a shill for XM... continually making false claims that
are easily proved false. Since he can't even get his "facts" right,
you gotta' suspect that his opinions on XM are worthless too.

I suspect that "Truth" is heavily invested in XM and he is worried
that once Howard gets on the air over at Sirius that XM will suffer
financially at the expense of Sirius, despite the head start that XM
had in launching its service.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message news:<101120041923299314%john@johnweeks.com>...
> In article <41929F15.12D704AE@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>
> > Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM.
>
> You can look at all the books you want to. I have both XM and Sirius
> in my truck, and I know that Sirius works better in the rural area.
> The XM satellites are lower in the sky, and they get blocked out by
> obstructions on the ground and mountains. I run the Great River Road
> often, and XM is blocked out for 1/2 hour at a time, while Sirius only
> loses signal for two 15 second hits.

Of course you are corerct, but you are trying to talk facts to this XM
shill who calls himself "Truth", which is an odd name to choose since
most of the stuff he posts about XM and Sirius is false.


[snip]

> > Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius has,
> > and understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!
>
> Are you sure that you are not a TROLL? I worked for the biggest
> retailer of satellite radios, and I got both systems the day that
> they were made available to the public. I had XM for over a year
> before I was able to get Sirius.

What a surprise. Another lie from "Truth". Since his stated "facts"
about satellite radio are usually wrong, I would take his opinions
about the subject with a grain of salt too.

[bugman]

As a gay/Mexican/Sirius owner................. (all right, just kidding)


Well this started out as an intelligent response but the deeper it got
the more xenophobic you became. I just want to take issue with one
point, Howard Sterns show will sound like crap over any radio. Anyone
listing on any kind of quality equipment would hear how over processed
his voice is. His voice vibrates my car like the shit head listening to
the BOOM BOOM rap 2 lanes over. Having met him in person recently I can
guarantee you that he sounds nothing like that in person.

[KK]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:23:29 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:

> I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
> Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic Rewind.
> XM has only 1, Top Tracks.

40 Deep Tracks
41 Boneyard
42 Liquid Metal
43 XMU
44 Fred
45 XM Cafe
46 Top Tracks
47 Ethel
48 Squizz
50 The Loft
51 XM Music Lab
52 Unsigned
53 Fungus
54 Lucy


All rock.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <101120041536055161%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.

I don't know that XM can't make the same claim, but I have heard many
new acts on Sirius I'd never heard before. And I've heard some
wonderful stuff. Their old "Border" channel was, in my opinion, the
best place to hear new, good music. Too bad they sacrificed it.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <41929F15.12D704AE@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than XM or
> [Sirius,] so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I have a
> choice
> to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM for the
> superior sound quality.

It's true that the NPR/PRI streams are no place to hear music. However,
they're perfectly adequate for new/information. Unless you live in a
city with more than two NPR/PRI stations, you cannot hear every program
available to you in Sirius. That's the Sirius advantage over broadcast
Public Radio.

[Boston Blackie]

pardon me, but does every discussion on the usenet have to dissolve into
a flame fest?

[bugman]

Sirius NPR has lots of Car Talk repeats. I really like Car Talk, it
defiantly passes the time on long drives.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <pan.2004.11.11.14.21.59.45711@furburger.net>, KK
<remove_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:23:29 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
> > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
> > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic Rewind.
> > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
>
> 40 Deep Tracks
> 41 Boneyard
> 42 Liquid Metal
> 43 XMU
> 44 Fred
> 45 XM Cafe
> 46 Top Tracks
> 47 Ethel
> 48 Squizz
> 50 The Loft
> 51 XM Music Lab
> 52 Unsigned
> 53 Fungus
> 54 Lucy
>
>
> All rock.

Hardly. Most of them are heavy metal or experimental music that
is unlistenable except by the mothers of the people who recorded
the music. When you get rid of all the trash, you are left with
one rock channel (Top Tracks), one channel for music professors
(Deep Tracks), and two 1/2 channels of more mellow stuff (Loft and
Cafe). Loft and Cafe play so much stuff that nobody has ever
heard of that they only qualify to be 1/2 channels in my book.
Everything else on the list is noise and head-banger material.

When you compare listenable classic rock channels, XM has only
Top Tracks, while Sirius has The Vault, Classic Rewind, and
Classic Vinyl, so they are 3 to 1 over XM.

-john-

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

[Mark S.]

"KK" <remove_KK_@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.11.14.21.59.45711@furburger.net...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:23:29 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
>> I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
>> Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic Rewind.
>> XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
>
> 40 Deep Tracks
> 41 Boneyard
> 42 Liquid Metal
> 43 XMU
> 44 Fred
> 45 XM Cafe
> 46 Top Tracks
> 47 Ethel
> 48 Squizz
> 50 The Loft
> 51 XM Music Lab
> 52 Unsigned
> 53 Fungus
> 54 Lucy
>
>
> All rock.

14 Classic Vinyl Early Classic Rock
15 Classic Rewind Later Classic Rock
16 The Vault Deeper Classic Rock
17 Jam_ON Jam Bands
18 The Spectrum Adult Album Rock
19 Buzzsaw Classic Hard Rock
20 Octane Pure Hard Rock
21 Alt Nation Alternative Rock
22 First Wave Classic Alternative
23 Hair Nation 80s Hair Bands
24 SIRIUS Disorder Eclectic/Free Form
25 Underground Garage Garage Rock
26 Left Of Center New/College/Indie Rock
27 Hard Attack Heavy Metal
28 Faction Punk, Hip-Hop, Hard Rock Mix

All rock.

Actually, Sirius places Sirius Blues and Reggae Rhythms in the Rock
category, too, but I don't consider these to be rock genres.

[KK]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:17:44 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:

> When you compare listenable classic rock channels, XM has only Top Tracks,
> while Sirius has The Vault, Classic Rewind, and Classic Vinyl, so they are
> 3 to 1 over XM.

Counting what you consider 'listenable' isn't exactly an objective
comparison of the number of rock channels on the two services.

[KK]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:48:02 -0330, Mark S. wrote:

> All rock.

So what? I didn't say that Sirius didn't have other channels, or even
that XM has more. I just disputed that XM has only one.

[KK]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:11:19 -0600, Boston Blackie wrote:

> pardon me, but does every discussion on the usenet have to dissolve into a
> flame fest?

Fuck you!

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <pan.2004.11.11.16.26.51.509295@furburger.net>, KK
<remove_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:17:44 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
> > When you compare listenable classic rock channels, XM has only Top Tracks,
> > while Sirius has The Vault, Classic Rewind, and Classic Vinyl, so they are
> > 3 to 1 over XM.
>
> Counting what you consider 'listenable' isn't exactly an objective
> comparison of the number of rock channels on the two services.

I think that it is a fairly objective description for the vast
majority of people who are reading and following my reviews.
If I were to represent Squizz or Octane as mainstream rock channels,
a vast majority of my readers would lose their trust in what I write.
I refuse to misrepresent reality.

-john-

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

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419272DF.9B221186@sucks.com...
>> I know many who feel the way you do about Sirius, but there are many who
>> feel the same way about XM.
>
> I don't know anyone that feels that XM has a more limited playlist than
> Sirrius
> or less of a selection of music and formats. Who are these people you
> know?

Sometimes less is more. Great taste, less filling! You can just fill your
music library with every possible conceivable song ever made and say wow
look at all the songs we have, or go through it and remove the rubbish and
give people a service that they won't get bored listening to. I don't think
Sirius has less of a selection of formats, some are the same and some are
different. We wouldn't want both services to be clones of each other. Some
genres have to be different to give people reason to choose one service over
another. When I said I know many who feel the way you do about Sirius, I
wasn't referring to feeling that XM has a more limited playlist, but the
dislike of the opposite service. I'm sure you'll find many of these people
who feel this way at Siriusbackstage ;-) Anyways, for others who may have
missed the other thread you took my reply from, here is what I was replying
to when I said that "there are many who feel the same way about XM":

>>> Nonetheless, I do have XM and it is a million times better than Sirrius.
>>> I
>>> every so often get the chance to surf someone else's Sirrius and it just
>>> sucks.

>> It really comes down to a matter of personal
>> preferance.
>
> Right, some people like Football and Sports, and some like Music over
> sports.

I really don't have much of an interest in sports at all, although that is a
draw for some to Sirius. I prefer the music stations and playlists on
Sirius to those on XM. I still like what is on XM enough to justify having
both, but I find myself listening to Sirius more because I like what they
play and I don't get bored with the playlist as much as I do with XM.

>> I like things about both services and that's why I have both.
>
> I can't find anything about Sirrius that I like, including the way their
> satellites orbit. I mean if at least they had something better
> somewhere, but
> I don't see it. They don't even have as cool of a selection of radios
> as XM
> does. Sirrius is in FORDS while XM is with GM.
>
> I mean, where is the one thing Sirrius has over XM? Football to me is
> a
> minus. In fact, XM adding baseball puts XM down one point for me too.

Sirius' orbit allows for better reception while mobile. Before they
launched and when they were first licenced, Sirius planned on using a fixed
geostationary orbit above the equator, just like XM, but then they decided
since that the overwhelming majority of users of the service would be
listening in cars that using a molniya orbit would work much better, and it
does. However, they did underestimate how many people in homes would end up
using the service, but this is not a nail in the coffin as it works great in
many peoples homes. It may be more frustrating for some to find a spot
where they can continuously get a signal with Sirius. If you don't like
Sirius' playlists and selection of genres and talk, that's fine. I just
wouldn't expect everyone to feel the same way you do, just as I don't expect
everyone to love Sirius either. I do want people to have the opportunity to
make the decision for themselves. I can see the reasons why people would
like XM and not Sirius, but I can also see the reasons why people would like
Sirius and not XM. Can you do that? I like Sirius' selection of radios but
I'm definitely not picky. I got the old Jensen SSR1000 I think the model
number is and I bought it for $30 just in case Sirius wouldn't work out
here. I may upgrade when I got more money to spare but I'm quite happy with
what I have now. I think a lot of XM fans are putting a whole lot of their
energy in saying XM's equipment is superior by citing the MyFi which isn't
even being sold yet. Besides that and the SkyFi2, what else is new for them
to get excited about? Is anyone else besides Delphi making PnP's for them
yet?

>> I do keep the XM in the house because of reception issues with XM around
>> here in the car (as in it doesn't work!).
>
> You are not doing something right then. I keep the antenna INSIDE the
> car on
> the front dash, meaning many times some of the metal roof is blocking part
> of
> the sky from the antenna, but yet I have never had a problem yet, I get
> all
> three bars on the signal meter all the time.

I'm doing everything right. I'm in Newfoundland and XM's signal is very
weak here. If I bought one of the amplified directional home antennas I
might have better luck but the only spot I can get an XM signal in the house
here is in the kitchen window and I have to tilt the antenna as XM and
Sirius antennas aren't made to receive a signal at elevations below 15 or 20
degrees I think it is. XM's 115 sat is 9 degrees above the horizon here.
XM's 85 sat is higher but the beam is directed in the opposite direction so
the signal is too weak here to be usable on the sharkfin sony antenna. If I
lived in a higher signal area, I know things would be different.

>> Sirius also has a vast selection,
>> particularly in the Rock category
>
> I listened again this weekend, and all of them had on the same format,
> classic
> rock songs, on every channel, songs that are overplayed on the radio and
> no one
> wants to hear anymore. Songs we all already own on CDs, but can never
> play
> those CDs anymore, because FM radio has made us sick of them.

Well classic rock by definition isn't being made any more so no matter how
deep your playlist you're going to run into some limitations there. While
Sirius does have a great selection of Classic Rock stations, they have other
rock stations, too. I know you're never going to like Sirius' playlists,
but many other people do, myself included. I don't own that many CD's
because I got sick of buying CD's full of rubbish, and XM insists on playing
a lot of the rubbish. That's why I can get frustrated on XM and switch over
to Sirius. If I start hearing repeats or overplayed songs on Sirius I can
switch to XM until I get sick of hearing tonnes of obscure songs in a row.

>> but Sirius overall tends not to go as deep
>> as XM.
>
> Not deep, just a bigger wider playlist, and stuff FM doesn't play. If
> you
> want DEEP, then XM has a "Deep Cuts" channel, but that just sucks, because
> it is
> just songs no one knows or cares about.

This is the way I feel about many of the XM channels. They play a lot of
songs that no one knows or cares about. I don't mean songs that no one
knows but are cool and you're glad you've discovered them, either. I mean
songs that have been long forgotten for a reason.

> But XM plays songs that were hits,
> that everyone knows, but are just not allowed to be played on FM radio
> anymore
> for some reason. Every song on XM is like: "WOW! I remember this
> song!
> COOL! What the FUCK is wrong with FM radio and Clear Channel that they
> never
> play these songs anymore?!"

While we don't have any CC channels here, Corus and Newcap are basically the
same thing. Stuff falls out of A, B and C rotation because it gets less
popular and it gets overplayed. They fall into F rotation of which the
station I worked for played twice an hour, if they had time for it.
Requests if not on the playlist for that hour or any adjacent hours got one
or two spots during the hour, and if room had to be made, F rotation songs
got the bump. I don't think every song on XM is like, "WOW! I remember this
song," etc etc. This is how I feel listening to Sirius Big 80's or 70's.
When I listen to XM 80's on 8, I'm like, "What the hell is this garbage?"
and then the next song, "wow this is garbage too," and then maybe the next
song, "Oh I don't remember that song, that's pretty cool though." and every
once in a while I'd be like, "Yeah this song is cool, this used to be gnarly
back in the day..."

> With Sirrius, and again this weekend listening to Sirrius, it is like:
> "God
> dammit, same classic rock crap and overplayed songs I can get on FM and
> don't
> bother to tune in."

While some of the songs are like this, I don't think they're all like this.
You've got to remember not everyone is unhappy with FM for their song
selections, but unhappy because they have to sit through 20 minutes of
commercials on the hour or have to deal with morning shows all morning
instead of hearing the music.

>> Some consider this to be a good thing, some do not. Some people
>> like to listen to the whole CD, some people find all too often they buy
>> CD's
>> and only like one or two songs off of it. If you are the latter, you'd
>> like
>> Sirius better.
>
> Actually, I usually never find more than one or two good songs per CD and
> prefer
> XM.
>
> But the one or two good songs from a lot of good CDs are not being played
> on
> Sirrius, and they are being played on XM. That's the difference.
>
> For those that like all the songs on CDs, then XM has DEEP CUTS for those
> type
> of people too, but I don't care for that channel, except when Dr Demento
> is
> played on it, another thing Sirrius does not have.

I disagree. I think how you describe Deep Cuts accurately describes how I,
and others who prefer Sirius, feel about the XM service as a whole.

> XM also has Art Bell and Coast to Coast, which Sirrius does not.

I'm not big into talk programming, but I'm sure there are others here who
are so I'll let them comment on what Sirius has that XM doesn't. I think
there was already a thread started about talk left, talk right, talk
central, etc.

>> There are times I'm in the mood for XM and times I'm in the mood for
>> Sirius.
>> Personally, I find myself listening to Sirius more often than XM, but I
>> can
>> absolutely see why someone else may find the opposite true.
>
> Considering most of the channels and programs I like on XM are not
> available on
> Sirrius, I don't see why I would ever be listening to Sirrius at all.

And that's okay. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and you are free
to choose not to listen to Sirius. I like both and to me, there's something
that each service can offer me that the other can't and I think they
compliment each other very well.

> One reason for trying again, was that in the begging, Sirrius was supposed
> to
> have superior sound quality than XM, but since, reports are now that XM is
> superior in sound quality to Sirrius. So I wanted to hear for myself
> and make
> the determination which one sounds better. Know what I found?
>
> BOTH of them sound like crap! Neither is better, both SUCK in terms of
> audio
> quality.
>
> What they need to do, is get rid of all the sports, Mexican, and weather
> traffic
> channels and give some of that bandwidth to the stations people actually
> listen
> to.

Well, what they really need to do is get more bandwidth! Someone obviously
listens to all of those stations, otherwise they'd be removed. Both XM and
Sirius regularly do surveys to determine what's popular and what's not.
Something that I really disapprove of is Sirius planning on launching mobile
video services. While they have long ago reserved the bandwidth for this
service, this is bandwidth that could be used for adding more channels or
improving the sound quality on channels which already exist. XM isn't
innocent here, either. XM is going to be sucking up their bandwidth with
mobile video channels, and they already are using up bandwidth with WxWorx,
weather and graphical data for aircraft and stormchasers, which only .00001%
of XM's customers are using or even have the equipment to use it.

> People into sports buy big screen televisions, not so they can tune into
> the
> radio to watch the game, and illegal aliens don't have credit cards to buy
> or
> subscribe to these services either, so no need for the Mexican channels.
> And
> the number one reason to get XM or Sirrius, is to get away from traffic
> reports
> and weather interruptions, so no one is going to listen and tune into a
> channel
> that has nothing BUT weather and traffic! Especially with the crap poor
> quality they come in on! I can not even UNDERSTAND what the hell they
> are
> saying on those channels the audio quality is SOOOO poor on those
> channels!

I think the main reason sports channels are on satellite radio, or radio in
general is because people sit at home gathered around the radio to listen to
the game, but so that people who cannot be at home by the TV, but in the car
or elsewhere can listen to the game. Besides, not all sports fans can
afford the NFL sunday ticket package to get every game including the out of
market games. $13/mo is much cheaper so in that case, maybe people at home
will be listening instead of watching. Also, I know of sports fanatics who
do have the big screen HDTV's and satellite dishes with NFL sunday ticket
who use Sirius to listen to their favourite announcers on there and watch
the game (delayed 20 seconds with their TIVO) at the same time. I agree
with you on the sound quality of the traffic and weather channels, it sounds
like my Atari talking, but on the same token, this means the bandwidth they
are using up is very minimal. Probably all of them together would take up
the same amount of bandwidth as 2 music stations if that.

>> I'll be the first to say that neither are CD quality.
>
> Neither are CASSETTE quality! And I am NOT exaggerating either. In
> fact,
> after listening to satellite radio for a few hours, then switching to an
> FM
> station, you REALLY REALLY appreciate the drastic improvement in audio
> quality
> that the FM stations have, even WITH the over processing many have!

I don't feel that way. I deal with the artifacting to overcome
overprocessing/overcompression, static, multipath and fading on FM. Some
will say Cassettes are better sound quality than CD's. Vinyl is even better
quality, and quadraphonic 8 tracks, wow! But, since CD's are digital, they
have no hiss, reproduce sounds at the same frequency every time, and they're
smaller, don't have to be rewound and are cheap to make. Tradeoffs. All
about tradeoffs.

> In fact, I even prefer the undistorted sound of Art Bell over AM radio
> than
> listening to the distortion satellite radio adds to talk programs because
> they
> feel talk programs don't need as much bandwidth as the music channels and
> make
> all talk shows sound like even the host of the show is talking over a
> digital
> cell phone!

I think C-QUAM AM stereo sounds great, too, as long as there's no lightning
storms, power lines, interference from long distance skip and you are
relatively close to the transmitter. A lot of AM talk stations are getting
their feeds via ISDN or low symbol rate satellites now anyways so you will
get the static on top of digital artifacting.

>> However, I'm willing
>> to sacrifice some sound quality/resolution for selection.
>
> I would rather get rid of half the channels, and improve the quality on
> the
> channels people actually listen to. We don't need dozens of Mexican
> channels, Sports and weather channels. In fact, no matter which market
> you
> live in, no one will ever be listening to MOST of the weather and traffic
> channels, so what a waste of bandwidth! Get rid of them all! If
> anyone
> wants weather or traffic, they can tune to an AM station and get it
> instantly.

You don't need dozens of Hispanic, sports and weather channels. This is not
Truth's own personal satellite radio service. The surveys will determine
what channels are good for the service as a whole to the majority of
subscribers. For the record, a lot of Hispanic channels were removed within
the last year, however I woudn't be suprised if some would come back a few
years down the road. They are the fastest growing ethnicity in the US. I
can't get weather or traffic on AM here instantly. What they need to do is
use RDS on FM or some sort of signalling on AM to alert me when the traffic
or weather is on so I can press a button and have it switch to that channel
when it is on. I think here it comes on at the hour and the half hour, I'm
not sure. I'm not going to listen through a half hour of country music on
VOCM to find out.

>> I'm not going to
>> argue against your comparison of FM sound quality against satellite radio
>> either. I know many would say you're crazy, but I'm also a believer that
>> analog has the ability to sound much better than digital.
>
> There is nothing to argue, it is just a fact. Too many of the
> channels on
> XM and Sirrius sound like digital cell phones with that watery distortion
> sound
> so well known with the crap cell phones today. I still have my cell
> phone from
> the 80s and it sounds just like talking over a regular phone line because
> it is
> analog, not digital.
>
> Technology peaked in the 80s. Now everything in audio and video quality
> is
> going downhill and getting worse again.

Before cellular there was IMTS. This service (which was still active here
until last year!) had superior coverage and sound quality using 50w mobile
VHF transceivers. However, when more people started getting on the service,
the service became too busy to make a call on it and you'd be waiting and
waiting until you got the light that said it was available again. When AMPS
cellular rolled out, they used a higher frequency with towers with a modest
height to them to limit each towers range so they could reuse the limited
amount of channels available. A channel expansion occured later which took
out TV channels 70-83, and gave cellular over 1000 channels, however with
the advances in technology and prices coming down, everyone was getting a
cell phone and once again towers were becoming congested with traffic. So
then they tried narrowing the analogue channel to squeeze in more channels
into the limited bandwidth and NAMPS was born.... and it lived a very short
life. Digital was the only way to go. It allows the use of the same amount
of bandwidth to hold 5x as many calls or more. Sound quality has
artifacting, but no static and most people were happy. Plus, battery life
is 10x better using digital over analog so again people are happy. My phone
lasts about a month in standby mode. If XM or Sirius transmitted analog
using the same amount of bandwidth a typical FM broadcast station takes up,
they'd be able to fit around 20 stations. If they had to use the same
amount of separation afforded FM broadcast stations terrestrially, they'd be
able to fit 10. I think people are happier having 120 stations rather than
10 or 20. Oh, by the way, most phone lines these days are digital, too.
They're only analog when they come to your house. In Europe this has
already started to change years ago with cable tv providers providing people
with their phone service, so it's digital all the way to the house.

>> Again, to me this
>> is a tradeoff. We trade in the static we get if there is a less than
>> perfect signal, the multipath interference, the overcompression some
>> stations have, co-channel interference and fading for a steady all or
>> nothing digital signal, along with comes some artifacting.
>
> Same thing with a less than perfect Satellite signal, in fact, even worse.
> With analog, you can still hear the program with a weak signal, but with
> satellite and digital, it goes completely silent and you hear nothing.
> I
> would rather have a weak analog signal I could listen to than nothing to
> listen
> to at all.

Actually, you don't have to have a perfect satellite signal, or a perfect
digital signal for it to decode. There is a window of signal strength in
which there is audible static on an analog signal where a digital signal
will decode perfectally, even moreso thanks to FEC, spatial and temporal
diversity. Ask anyone who listens to DRM on shortwave or uses any of the
ham radio digital radio modes on HF. There's also a window of very weak
reception where analog will be audible enough for the human ear to interpret
but where digital will not decode. With satellite radio, there is not too
many occasions where this would happen. Terrestrial digital would be a
different story.

>> I've come
>> accustomed to the sound quality on satellite radio and I'm used to it;
>
> See that is the problem. People are getting used to the crap quality,
> then
> companies keep making it worse and worse to save more money so long as the
> majority never complain about it and get "used to it" and accept crap and
> be
> happy as the subscription rates will increase over the years and the
> quality
> will get worse.

I don't think XM or Sirius would even be there if they were limited to
analog technology. I'd rather have a digital service with 120 channel than
no satellite radio at all. I think it's a pretty good combination of
quantity and quality. Worth the tradeoff IMO.

> I will NEVER get used to the horrible video quality of broadcasts today,
> and all
> the lip synching problems on all news clips today. Everytime Larry
> King, for
> instance, shows a video clip, the audio is NEVER in sync with the video
> and it
> has been like this for a few YEARS already. No need for them to fix it
> so long
> as none of you care or you all just get USED to it.

Again, people are preferring having thousands of TV channels to having just
a dozen. I agree, there's not much better in picture quality than a direct
analog C band feed, even HDTV. However it's not feasable to have all of
todays TV channels in analog, there's just not enough space to put them all.

> It SUCKS. And it is pathetic that video quality and broadcasts in the
> 80s
> sounded and looked better than they do today in the year 2004.

Well if you can figure out a way that we can have the same amount of TV
channels that we have today in the same quality we had then you'll be rich!

> If you would have told people back in the 80s, that audio and video
> quality
> would be much worse in the year 2004, they would probably have laughed at
> you,
> yet see how it is actually true and fact.

Some people prefer being rid of static and having the amount of selection
they have today, even if it means digital artifacting.

>> it's
>> not bad enough for it to bother me. The average Joe will agree, but
>> audiophiles may cringe listening to it.
>
> Audiophiles will not listen to it at all. Hopefully just normal regular
> people will complain until they improve it. We should all be willing
> to give
> up all the sports, weather, traffic, and mexican channels in exchange for
> better
> quality on the channels we all actually listen to.

I think it would take a lot more than removing these channels which take up
not very much bandwidth anyway. I'd say the improvement would be so
marginal no one would be able to tell the difference without a scope.

>> > Listening to Stern now on FM, it is going to be a VERY BIG
>> > disappointment
>> > listening to his show via bad MP3 sounding audio, although the trade
>> > off
>> > is that
>> > you can hear him say cunt and fucker.
>>
>> Aha, speaking of tradeoffs, there's one. He won't be held down by the
>> FCC
>> anymore. It shall be interesting!
>
> On Sirrius, no one will be able to HEAR him, so he will be like a tree
> falling
> in the middle of a forest where no one will know if he makes a sound or
> not.
>
> And instead of people just accepting he has to go to satellite and getting
> used
> to the fact that the audio quality of his show will get much worse, they
> should
> all have been outraged and protested so he could say what ever he wants to
> say
> now on the radio and we would not have to take ANY tradeoff.
>
> Taking a tradeoff, is letting big rich people change things and the
> majority
> sitting back and letting them get away with it.
>
> But since the majority of you all go along with them and never protest,
> the
> minority always has to live with the crap the majority forces us to have
> because
> they don't have any balls to stand up and complain as nature intended.
> The
> way a species gets extinct, is by sitting back, and never fighting.

More people will be able to hear him because he will be on satellite. I'm
sure not all of his fans will come to Sirius, but if only 10% come to
Sirius, it will be a success, plus Howard will gain fans he's never had
before.

>> I do encourage everyone to go to your local best buy or whatever and take
>> a
>> careful listen to both.
>
> Yes indeed.
>
>> Ignore what the sales rep has to say;
>
> NEVER listen to a sales rep for anything. And don't do what I seen so
> many
> people at the stores do, choose XM or Sirrius because they liked one radio
> better than the other on display at the store, and then just took either
> XM or
> Sirrius depending on which went with that radio.
>
> Do the research on everything BEFORE you go to the store, so when the
> salesmoron
> approaches you, you can tell him which radio you want, because you already
> know
> everything about it, and know much more than the salesmoron knows.
>
>> few are
>> knowledgable and many are biased due to SPIFFS giving them an alterior
>> motive to selling you a particular brand over the other.
>
> Yes my stupid friend fell for this when buying from Best Buy. He asked
> which
> speakers were the best, and was told: "These are what we sell the most
> of, they
> are the most popular" so he bought those. When they sounded like crap,
> I
> told him they WERE crap. The only reason they sold better than the rest
> of
> the crap at Best Buy, is because of all the crap they sell, they were the
> best,
> but they were just the best of all the crap THEY sold. You don't buy
> speakers from Best Buy, because they don't sell good speakers at Best Buy.
> Period.
>
>> Some will come to
>> the conclusion that they will like XM better, some will like Sirius
>> better.
>
> The facts show that not many are finding Sirrius better. Look at the
> subscriber base of both services! The few that end up getting Sirrius,
> listened to the salesmoron at the stores and didn't do the research
> themselves
> before buying.

Actually Sirius is growing faster and the gap is closing. XM usually has
better displays and they're the ones paying off sales reps and the people
who have Sirius are those who can think for themselves, who are willing to
pay $3/mo more for what they want and for a service which will never charge
them any extra for any additional programming they gain in the future, who
won't buy a satellite radio service just because they have more subscribers
or because they saw more commercials on TV for them, and who won't listen to
the stupid sales rep who has a personal financial interest in selling one
service over the other.

>> Also, both services have free online streaming trials.
>
> So they always say, but it is either not true many times, or very
> difficult to
> sign up for, or requires giving email addresses and personal information.

No personal information is required, just an email address. I made up a
free email account with bogus information just to sign up for stuff like
this so it can collect junk mail. I've used the free trials on both
services and there are no catches. What would be the point in offering them
if there were any catches? This is the chance they have to show off their
service to prospective subscribers.

>> While the sound
>> quality is worse than what it is from the satellites, it will give you an
>> idea
>
> No, it therefore can NEVER give you an idea of what the product sounds
> like at
> all, because it is not the same. Best thing is to find people at work
> or
> neighbors that have them, and listen to them that way. Stores are too
> noisy,
> you can't really turn things up loud enough to really hear them, or they
> have
> crap speakers connected so you don't know if it is the radio or the
> speakers
> that sound so bad.

You snipped off what I was saying in the middle of it. I never said it
could give you an idea of what the actual sound quality sounds like, but
what the programming is like which should be a more important consideration
anyways, since most agree the sound quality between XM and Sirius are pretty
comparable. A display in the store will give you an idea of what's on
satellite radio, and a better idea than the online trial of what it sounds
like. If you want the best trial, buy them both and return the one you
don't like, or return them both.

>> of what's on each channel and if you can put up with the
>> programming/DJ's or not.
>>
>> > Buying Sirrius just for Stern is not worth the money. Buying XM
>> > without
>> > Stern
>> > is still worth the money.
>> >
>> > Having Stern on XM would be the best of both worlds.
>>
>> Since I'm already a Sirius subscriber, obviously I think Sirius without
>> Stern is worth the money
>
> I don't see how you can say that. You must like football. Or hearing
> the
> same overplayed songs on FM stations now that you already own on CDs
> anyway.

I don't like football. I like the music and the genres on Sirius. I don't
find all of their music to be "the same overplayed songs on FM stations
now."

>> and having Stern added in less than 14 months is
>> just another added benefit, and I'm glad I don't have to pay $2 extra for
>> him.
>
> Right, you have to pay $3 extra for him.
>
> XM $10 a month versus Sirrius $13 a month.

I was already paying $12.99/mo already. Obviously I already felt that this
was a good deal, and having Stern added for no extra charge is just icing on
the cake. If you want anything considered premium on XM, like O&A, Playboy
and online streaming, you have to pay extra, and that price far exceeds that
of Sirius' monthly charge.

> Even with paying a $2 subscription fee on XM for Stern, you would still be
> saving money. But if he went on XM without an extra fee, WOW the money
> you
> save!

If you used the annual plan on Sirius, it would be cheaper than XM over a
year with O&A or Howard if he was on a premium channel. Howard will have
more listeners just because he won't be on a premium channel. No one's
signing up for the O&A channel because most people have never heard of them
and aren't going to pay for someone they've never heard before.

>> I've heard from many XM subscribers who either never before took a
>> good listen to Sirius before and those who have and liked both but went
>> to
>> XM, and the Stern addition has them switched over.
>
> And the fools that they are, they go out and buy Sirrius radios NOW.
>
> Why is that foolish? For TWO reasons.....
>
> 1) Sirrius may not even be AROUND by the time Stern is out of his
> contract with
> FM, and you would be stuck with a Sirrius radio instead of the better XM
> service.

I'd highly doubt this. If anything, someone (like Viacom) would buy them up
and operate them.

> 2) Even IF Sirrius is still around in a year, you would be stuck with an
> inferior radio with less features and poorer quality, than if you waiting
> until
> he was actually ON Sirrius and could then select from the models of radios
> at
> that time that are going to blow away anything available now.

Well by that logic, you could say that in one year why buy a radio then
since a year after that there are going to be better radios and so on and so
forth. You'd be waiting forever to get a new radio because the technology
is never going to top off. I'm quite happy with the radio which was
outdated even when I bought it a year ago. It doesn't have a clock, or
alarm, or a home cradle, or song search or anything fancy like that. It is
just a plain vanilla satellite radio with no preservatives.

> So why buy a Sirrius radio now if you are getting it to listen to Stern?

If you planned on getting a satellite radio anyways and want to be able to
listen to Howard in the future then this would be the deal maker for you and
you'd choose Sirius.

> In fact, the very reason so many people have XM radios now, is because
> Stern
> promoted them so highly on his program and led listeners to believe he
> might be
> going to XM. Remember?

Actually, Howard isn't on the air here, so no I don't. If they were smart
they'd wait until it was written in stone like it is now.

> So now many people are buying Sirrius, and then what happens when they
> fail and
> Howard goes over to XM instead?

What are the chances of this happening, 1 in a billion?

> WAIT until he is actually ON one before buying the radio! Unless you
> want
> what is on satellite now, in which case, get XM. It is better all
> around.
> Better music channels, better talk shows, better satellite system in
> space,
> better reception, better and cooler radios available for XM service.

Not everyone agrees XM is better, that's why many are getting Sirius.

>> >> AND you get free online streaming
>> >
>> > Even for free, would never use it. Slows down the computer and
>> > internet
>> > use,
>> > much better to listen over a radio next to the computer like I do with
>> > XM.
>>
>> Hmm, I use a P166MMX thinkpad laptop w/wireless lan hooked up to a ghetto
>> blaster to listen to Sirius via the streaming upstairs and that works
>> just
>> fine.
>
> But again, you are not into good sound quality, you can get used to how
> bad that
> sounds.

I was responding to your comment that streaming audio slows down your
computer and internet use. Not once did you mention sound quality in
reference to internet streaming. I would love to listen to XM or Sirius at
work but I can't get a signal in there. No windows where I am, lots of
metal and computers. The only option I have is streaming audio, and the
internal speaker is small in my computer and I keep it at a low enough
volume that I cannot tell that there's any artifacting there. Now if I hade
a Bose wave radio in there I'd probably care more about the quality, but
like I said, I can't get a signal anyways so the point is moot.

> I am used to listening to FM over good receivers, even at the computer or
> desk,
> Tivoli Model One or Boston Receptor. I could never drop down to online
> streaming or listen to the crap quality boom boxes available today.

That's interesting. Do you know that Tivoli has a Sirius table top radio
like the model one?

>> I do have Rogers High Speed cable internet, though. A 32k/sec stream
>> would be quite detrimental to the thoroughput on a 56k modem, I'd
>> imagine.
>
> If I send you crap audio over the best and fastest connection, what do you
> end
> up with?

I end up with a computer whose internet connection is not slowed down, which
was your argument previously.

>> > The worst part about Sirrius is the inferior reception, due to their
>> > traveling
>> > satellites. XM's stationary satellites are always in the same place
>> > and
>> > you
>> > can always count on them being there.
>> >
>> > Rock solid reception, even indoors with the antenna on the floor in the
>> > middle
>> > of the room not near any windows.
>>
>> This really depends on the person. I've heard it both ways.
>
> I am a broadcast engineer, so I know what I am talking about. The
> people that
> say it the other way, is because they didn't have something hooked up
> right, had
> a defective radio with one service, or god knows what.

This is not true. I'm glad you're a broadcast engineer but what in your job
have you had to do with microwaves and satellites in the S band?? I've had
more experience with S band emissions than you as a ham radio operator I'm
almost sure of it.

> I assure you, the reception with XM is far better than with Sirrius under
> same
> fair comparison conditions. XMs satellites stay put and you always
> have two
> you can count on, while Sirrius satellites fly all over the place and
> aren't
> always there for you. They need THREE satellites because of this in
> the
> hopes that one will be around for you, but they are constantly moving, you
> don't
> know where the hell to point your antenna to, and if you did, in a few
> minutes
> it would be somewhere else. Very bad system.

They use three satellites but two are always over North America while the
third is turned off while over South America. There are always two
satellites on in North America at all times. Never any less. There's
always at least one that will be higher in the sky than either of XM's
satellites, often being straight up. What obstruction is going to block a
signal coming from straight up?

>> Some people
>> can't get an XM signal even in their windowsill but can get a Sirius
>> signal
>> penetrating through their roof.
>
> I couldn't get an XM signal in the window either. Too much metal around
> the
> windows and in the wall. So I put it AWAY from the window, in the
> middle of
> the room on the floor and suddenly it came in full strength. Now I
> make sure
> never to put the antenna near any windows and I never have any problems.

As I mentioned earlier, the only place I can get a signal is in my Kitchen
window, metal or not.

>> get XM great in the centre of their house. XM does have more terrestrial
>> repeaters
>
> Another plus, but I don't have any in my area and depend just on the two
> satellites. The signal strength on BOTH satellites always comes in
> strong
> (you can put many radios like the Delphis in special test modes to
> actually
> measure each satellite separately) and I only need ONE to get a good
> signal, but
> I get both, even indoors.

It's only a plus if you happen to live by one of their repeaters. They have
more repeaters out of necessity since their satellites are always lower on
the horizon than Sirius. I get no signal from one XM satellite and an okay
one from the other. The microwave makes it cut out as does heavy snow.

>> supplemented by terrestrial repeaters in cities more often. 99% of the
>> time, if you can manage getting the Sirius antenna on the roof, you will
>> get
>> a signal.
>
> I should HOPE so! But how many people realistically can get these
> antennas
> on their roof?

About the same amount of people who can get a DirecTV or Dish network dish,
or TV aerial, I'd say.

> Another reason for going with XM, is that I don't have to put an antenna
> on the
> outside of my car anywhere, no holes to drill, no installation, I just
> plop the
> tiny 1 inch antenna INSIDE the car, usually by the front or back window,
> and I
> get great reception. Try doing that with a Sirius radio!

You'll see that many people have on Siriusbackstage. For me, Sirius works
better with the antenna inside the car than XM does with the antenna
outside, due to my location. I have the antenna on the outside since I like
to have the best performance possible, and both services are weaker here
than in the continental US, especially XM.

>> Sirius' satellites do move, but there is always one in a loop
>> around the centre of Canada so if you can tilt towards the north or find
>> a
>> window facing that way you should have good luck with it.
>
> Why jump through all those hoops if I don't have to? XM is rock solid
> without playing any games or waiting for a satellite to come around.
> They
> always have two right over you.

Not right over, at an angle to your south, and a low angle at that. XM
isn't rock solid indoors for everyone remember, and you can't automatically
assume this is because everyone is doing something wrong.

>> Since they move
>> it may take a few tries to find a spot that doesn't cut out at various
>> times
>> during the day whereas with XM if you find a spot that works, it will
>> always
>> work.
>
> Now think about this. If Sirius is the type of company that made such a
> stupid
> decision like this with satellites, what kind of decisions are they going
> to
> make regarding programming?

I think it's a very smart decision, personally. Sirius has better mobile
coverage for a service whose subscribers are mainly using the service in
their vehicles.

> Just the name alone. Sirius. Stupid! XM was a much better idea.

Why? I guess they could have picked something that some people wouldn't
have such difficulty spelling! XM confuses some people into thinking it's
some kind of new modulation type. Amplitude Modulation, Frequency
Modulation and then what? Xtreme Modulation? Xtra Money? A name is a
silly thing to argue over.

>> > Sirrius, you can hardly keep the signal outside in a car, as many
>> > people
>> > complain about.
>>
>> Overall throughout North America, I've had less trouble keeping a Sirius
>> signal in the car than an XM signal. XM tends to get through tree
>> canopied
>> areas slightly better in my opinion, but buildings, mountains and rock
>> cuts
>> on the highway Sirius gets over top of and XM does not.
>
> No, you were just lucky at that minute that a Sirius satellite was over
> you, go
> to the same place again at another time and then you won't get Sirius at
> all.

Even if this was a case, I'd know that I would have a 100% chance of NOT
getting an XM signal in that spot. For example I-80 across the mountains in
central PA, XM drops out going eastbound every time. Sirius works there
every time.

>> > Also, Sirrius has a channel dedicated to homosexuals, XM does not.
>>
>> Well I'm sure the LBGT community finds this channel to be an asset. I'm
>> straight and don't care for the channel much myself,
>
> Think about it, MOST people on the planet don't care for that channel, so
> what a
> waste of bandwidth. What next, a channel for every other birth defect
> too? Channel for people without arms?

Wow, besides your obvious issues with LBGT, the channel must be doing well
enough in the surveys to keep the channel around.

>> but I know of other
>> straight people who enjoy the channel.
>
> That's a big red flag that they are not straight at all, but closet
> homosexuals
> trying to promote the channel with the deception: "See, even us normal
> people
> like gay stuff." Don't believe it.

Gosh, should I suspect my girlfriend of being a lesbian after all these
years?

>> You can kind of liken it to these
>> gay comedies that are on TV; a lot of people find them funny
>
> Yes, homosexuals. The rest of us get sick to our stomach thinking about
> it.

I guess if you were in the KKK or the Arian nation or something...

> This 10 year FAD of homosexuals being "cool" and in "fashion" is finally
> over. Even before an election, both candidates, who would normally
> avoid
> talking at all about a controversial subject and would not want to
> alienate ANY
> potential voters, BOTH said they were outright against gay marriage.

I don't really care for the influx of shows with homosexuals in it, but it's
a matter of personal preference, not homophobia. I also didn't like the
huge influx of TV primetime gameshows, either. It's one of those things
where one show was decent, so every network then next season tries to make a
show like it with a different twist. Same thing with these reality shows
and home improvement shows. Too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing.

> I am glad to see that we no longer have to be afraid to say so, without
> fear of
> being called "politically incorrect" anymore. It is now politically
> correct
> to admit that homosexuality is not normal, it is a birth defect, and that
> is
> fine, but it is not something we need to PROMOTE and put on PARADE and
> force
> EVERYONE to accept.

That is not only politically incorrect, but just plain wrong. I don't even
know where to start with that one.

> You don't see any channels with people who like to have sex with their
> family
> members either, people keep that stuff to themselves, as it should be.

You see channels like Playboy which are much more explicit about women
having sex with women and men, but I don't see you complaining about that.
OutQ is not a gay porn channel. People who are LBGT shouldn't have to keep
that to themselves if that's who they are. They are not trying to promote
their way of life to anyone else, they're just trying to live and be
themselves.

>> and thus also
>> like the programming on OutQ. Sirius' latest customer survey focused
>> largely on OutQ which makes me think that Sirius is considering dumping
>> the
>> channel.
>
> That would be the first smart move they made. Besides, no matter HOW
> much
> people want to pretend the channel is great and everyone supports it, in
> REALITY
> no one listens to it and they won't make any money from it. Just like
> the
> big influx of Mexican stations on the AM, FM and TV dials. Everyone
> jumped in
> and did it, dozens of Mexican stations on the dials, but now they realize
> they
> CAN'T MAKE ANY MONEY with these stations catering to criminal illegal
> aliens,
> instead of the legal citizens that live in the country, a country that
> just
> happens to speak ENGLISH, not Mexican. So now FINALLY, these stations
> are
> all changing back to English language.

I believe they speak Spanish in Mexico. What if the service became licenced
in Mexico? They have a pretty good sized population there and either
service could benefit from an influx of even 1% of it.

> I hope and pray that Sirrius goes black, and we stop this VHS against BETA
> battle all over again. We have a winner, especially after this
> Christmas
> season, and Howard and everyone should be going with XM not Sirrius.

Would you really want a satellite radio monopoly? Then they could charge
whatever they want, bring back commercials, make crap radios and no one
would care because there's no other choice.

[Mark S.]

"KK" <remove_KK_@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.11.16.27.46.438602@furburger.net...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:48:02 -0330, Mark S. wrote:
>
>> All rock.
>
> So what? I didn't say that Sirius didn't have other channels, or even
> that XM has more. I just disputed that XM has only one.

Okay now people know what Sirius has to offer in the rock category, too :-)

[Truth]

> > Are you sure that you are not a TROLL? I worked for the biggest
> > retailer of satellite radios, and I got both systems the day that
> > they were made available to the public. I had XM for over a year
> > before I was able to get Sirius.
>
> What a surprise. Another lie from "Truth".

That's not even anything I said. Now look who the liar is. Why don't you go run for president in 2008,
you would win.

(and no, that is not a compliment)

[Truth]

> > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
> > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic Rewind.
> > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
>
> 40 Deep Tracks
> 41 Boneyard
> 42 Liquid Metal
> 43 XMU
> 44 Fred
> 45 XM Cafe
> 46 Top Tracks
> 47 Ethel
> 48 Squizz
> 50 The Loft
> 51 XM Music Lab
> 52 Unsigned
> 53 Fungus
> 54 Lucy
>
> All rock.

Exactly. What this guy means, is "classic rock", the stuff overplayed on the
FM. In fact, last weekend when using my friend's Sirrius radio, every music
channel that was English, was classic rock. They just have several stations
playing the same exact format, classic rock.

XM has several formats of Rock, not just Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin.

[lab~rat]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:09:22 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:

>> > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
>> > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic Rewind.
>> > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
>>
>> 40 Deep Tracks
>> 41 Boneyard
>> 42 Liquid Metal
>> 43 XMU
>> 44 Fred
>> 45 XM Cafe
>> 46 Top Tracks
>> 47 Ethel
>> 48 Squizz
>> 50 The Loft
>> 51 XM Music Lab
>> 52 Unsigned
>> 53 Fungus
>> 54 Lucy
>>
>> All rock.
>
>Exactly. What this guy means, is "classic rock", the stuff overplayed on the
>FM. In fact, last weekend when using my friend's Sirrius radio, every music
>channel that was English, was classic rock. They just have several stations
>playing the same exact format, classic rock.
>
>XM has several formats of Rock, not just Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin.
>
>
Do they have the CCR and Van Halen format, too?

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

[Truth]

> > > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I said.
> > > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic Rewind.
> > > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
> >
> > 40 Deep Tracks
> > 41 Boneyard
> > 42 Liquid Metal
> > 43 XMU
> > 44 Fred
> > 45 XM Cafe
> > 46 Top Tracks
> > 47 Ethel
> > 48 Squizz
> > 50 The Loft
> > 51 XM Music Lab
> > 52 Unsigned
> > 53 Fungus
> > 54 Lucy
> >
> >
> > All rock.
>
> Hardly. Most of them are heavy metal

1, Heavy Metal IS rock. 2, only ONE is heavy metal, not MOST.

Unless, like the music awards shows, (that gave Jethro Tull a Heavy Metal artist
of the year award) you don't know what Heavy Metal is.

> When you get rid of all the trash, you are left with
> one rock channel (Top Tracks), one channel for music professors
> (Deep Tracks),

Deep Tracks is the same exact classic rock artists, but playing "deep tracks"
(cuts farther IN on the records that FM stations never play) So you have your
choice. Sirrius' idea of choice, is having 3 or 4 channels of just "Top
Tracks" under different names.

> and two 1/2 channels of more mellow stuff (Loft and
> Cafe). Loft and Cafe play so much stuff that nobody has ever
> heard of that they only qualify to be 1/2 channels in my book.

I don't like those channels either. But without them, and without all the
Mexican channels and opera and whatnot, you still have a better selection of rock
than Sirrius has. Thus why XM has more subscribers than Sirrius has.

> Everything else on the list is noise and head-banger material.
>
> When you compare listenable classic rock channels, XM has only
> Top Tracks, while Sirius has The Vault, Classic Rewind, and
> Classic Vinyl, so they are 3 to 1 over XM.

All three are just "Top Tracks" with three different names. You will hear the
same songs at some time or another played on all three channels.

XM could have done the same thing and wasted two other channels to play the same
format too, but much better to use them for OTHER formats of rock, besides
classic rock.

[Truth]

> > > When you compare listenable classic rock channels, XM has only Top Tracks,
> > > while Sirius has The Vault, Classic Rewind, and Classic Vinyl, so they are
> > > 3 to 1 over XM.
> >
> > Counting what you consider 'listenable' isn't exactly an objective
> > comparison of the number of rock channels on the two services.
>
> I think that it is a fairly objective description for the vast
> majority of people who are reading and following my reviews.
> If I were to represent Squizz or Octane as mainstream rock channels,
> a vast majority of my readers would lose their trust in what I write.

We lose trust when you take ROCK to be synonymous with "CLASSIC ROCK"

If you want to say that Sirrius has more "CLASSIC ROCK" channels than XM, then no
one is going to argue with you, they sure do.

ROCK includes Classic, Punk, Heavy Metal, Alternative, Modern, New, etc.

Sirrius does not cover as wide a spectrum as Sirrius does when it comes to ROCK.

I don't listen to much heavy metal either, but I still don't argue that it is
Rock.

Let's just leave it that Sirrius has a lot more Classic Rock channels than XM
does.

More chances of tuning in Led Zeppelin or The Doors anytime you want to hear them.

[Truth]

> 14 Classic Vinyl Early Classic Rock
> 15 Classic Rewind Later Classic Rock
> 16 The Vault Deeper Classic Rock
> 18 The Spectrum Adult Album Rock
> 19 Buzzsaw Classic Hard Rock

Note the words "Classic Rock" in all those channels.


> Actually, Sirius places Sirius Blues and Reggae Rhythms in the Rock
> category, too, but I don't consider these to be rock genres.

Neither does anyone else.

But yes, we all have to agree that Sirrius has a lot more classic rock channels
than XM does.

In fact, XM has two classical music channels that are exactly the same and I can
not tell a difference between. Sirrius just does the same with classic
rock and makes MANY more channels of the same format.

[Truth]

> > All rock.
>
> So what? I didn't say that Sirius didn't have other channels, or even
> that XM has more. I just disputed that XM has only one.

Only one "classic rock" but even that is wrong. Both Top Tracks and
Deep Tracks are classic rock, one just plays the cuts of the albums that
FM radio plays, and "deep tracks" go deeper into the same albums to play
the tracks on the album FM stations do not play.

[Truth]

> >> Sirius has better rural coverage.
> >
> > Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM. False. XM
> > also has
> > more repeaters so this is not a concern anyway even if it were true.
>
> The orbit is exactly what gives Sirius better rural/mobile coverage compared
> to XM.

How can a Satellite going south over South America give better coverage in the
USA?

> XM has more repeateres because

Stop right there. If they have more repeaters, then that should HELP the
coverage over Sirrius, not make it worse.

I don't have any repeaters in my area, but get both satellites rock solid at all
times.

With Sirrius, you have to be careful to note if the satellites were over you or
not at whatever time it is.

> >> Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
> >
> > FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than XM
> > or
> > Sirrius, so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I have
> > a choice
> > to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM for
> > the
> > superior sound quality.
>
> You can't get NPR and PRI on FM or AM everywhere. We have neither here.

That is why it is nice to have it on satellite, and both XM and Sirrius give it
to you. Both sound horrible.

Thus, when you do have it on FM, (I can tune in NPR on the FM dial on at least 3
or 4 different spots between 88.1 and 91.9 FM) It sure sounds a lot cleaner.
No added distortion from low rate digital encoding for satellite.

> In
> fact, there are many areas into which I drive where I cannot receive
> anything on AM or FM at all during the day.

Nonsense. There is no place you can go where there is nothing on AM! You
have a really poor radio or antenna on it.

I can listen to stations on AM from Canada, Mexico, and many states all across
the USA.
When Art Bell comes on, I can usually get the same show from around at LEAST 10
different stations on my radios at the same time! No external antenna, just
simple clock radio.

> You cannot compare what happens
> to be on FM in your market to what's available to the rest of the continent

True. And even with those of us that have hundreds of FM stations to listen
to, there is not any programming worth listening to most of the day. Thus why
I have to suffer with poor quality audio of satellite radio to get more
interesting programs, or better selection of music.

> >> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
> >
> > Yes, all they play is stuff that FM radio has overplayed to death and we
> > don't
> > want to hear anymore.
>
> XM has plenty of channels just for that, like Top 20 on 20, MTV Radio, VH1
> Radio, and KISS-FM which actually used to simulcast an FM station in L.A.

Ok, now those are not rock, those are rap. Usually called "urban" "hip hop"
or whatever it is being called this week.

All of them are the exact same format on several channels just like Sirrius does
with the classic rock format.

XM only needs to keep Kiss-XM, and drop the rest as they are all the same thing.

> > XM plays stuff we have all heard of, but for some reason, FM radio does
> > not ever
> > play anymore.
>
> I've had times where I've listened to XM and not recognized one song for an
> entire hour.

Yes, many channels are like that for me. The Mexican channels, Hear Music
channel, New age channel, Opera channel, Country music channels, African music
channel, etc.

But I recognize every song played on all the rock channels, except the channels
playing new music, because the songs are "new" and nobody knows them yet.

The unsigned artist channel should have songs MOST people here have never heard
of before.

In fact, think of all the songs written 2 or 3 years from now that we don't know
yet, but will be classics one day.

> > They have a much larger library, with far fewer repeats.
>
> Sirius' library is plenty sufficient. Check this link out, you can see the
> times and channels your favourite song or artist was played on Sirius:
> http://www.itsonsirius.com/

Here is the one for XM:
http://www.xmmonitor.com/played/search

I did a search on both before I decided which service to go with, and was
disappointed that many of the songs I entered for Sirrius did not find results,
and was actually SHOCKED to see that the XM brought up songs I would have bet
they would never have had.

On the left column on the front page: http://www.xm411.com/ you can see
exactly what songs are playing on each channel RIGHT NOW. It updates live
before your eyes as each song changes to the next.

Does Sirrius have something like this to see the whole spread at once? If so,
please post it. I would like to keep checking Sirrius from time to time and
see any changes they make, neither will be as they are today as the years go
by. I would like to keep tabs on both of them.

> > Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius has,
> > and
> > understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!
> > The majority of people obviously see that XM is much better.
>
> Sirius' satellites were launched first, XM rolled out nationwide 8 months
> before Sirius rolled out, so you've got it backwards.

You just contradicted yourself. You say Sirrius was up first, which I knew,
then said XM was out first.

I had to produce programming for Sirrius long before EITHER was available to the
public. Why would I have to give them programming for them to broadcast if
the public didn't have radios yet? I can't answer that question, it never
made sense to me at the time either, but since the programs were syndicated on
regular AM and FM stations too, it was no big deal to send them the program
too. But Sirrius was broadcasting programming long before XM even had any
satellites up.

Perhaps you mean that XM got their asses in gear faster and got radios to the
public faster than Sirrius did, but that was my whole point. They were up
last, and even with a head start, Sirrius is way behind in subscribers.

Take that anyway you want to spin it, but doesn't say much for Sirrius as far as
how they run a business.

[Truth]

> We already went over this last week, asswipe.

Then let's not do it again, ok? I will throw in the towel, you can be the winner.

> Remember back when you
> tried to claim that the XM satellites were in orbit above the U.S. and
> then you sheepishly agreed with me after I corrected your false
> statement?

No, but I do remember someone arguing with me about some nonsense, since I never look
at the names of posters, I only read the messages, I have no idea if that was you or
not.

> Now that we have heard the false bullshit (again) from "Truth", I'll
> repeat the facts:

Since you keep better track of names of posters and who is posting what, why not just
ignore my posts from now on, it will probably make both of us happier. :)

(and those that have to read us attacking each other.)

[Truth]

> pardon me, but does every discussion on the usenet have to dissolve into
> a flame fest?

No, just MOST of them. Think about why the word "flame fest" even has
meaning to everyone on usenet, because it is so common.

Doesn't matter, I already threw in the towel with this guy, I will concede
and let him be the winner in the argument so that the country can go on.

[Mark S.]

"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:8ll7p09k4qo5mku38a2p4jmu14prm4nrmp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:09:22 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:
>
>>> > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I
>>> > said.
>>> > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic
>>> > Rewind.
>>> > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
>>>
>>> 40 Deep Tracks
>>> 41 Boneyard
>>> 42 Liquid Metal
>>> 43 XMU
>>> 44 Fred
>>> 45 XM Cafe
>>> 46 Top Tracks
>>> 47 Ethel
>>> 48 Squizz
>>> 50 The Loft
>>> 51 XM Music Lab
>>> 52 Unsigned
>>> 53 Fungus
>>> 54 Lucy
>>>
>>> All rock.
>>
>>Exactly. What this guy means, is "classic rock", the stuff overplayed
>>on the
>>FM. In fact, last weekend when using my friend's Sirrius radio, every
>>music
>>channel that was English, was classic rock. They just have several
>>stations
>>playing the same exact format, classic rock.
>>
>>XM has several formats of Rock, not just Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin.
>>
>>
> Do they have the CCR and Van Halen format, too?

Well they do have the Elvis channel, does that count? :-)

[Truth]

> This is more undisputable proof that "Truth" is a bullshit artist who
> just makes "facts" up to promote XM.

Considering how many negative things I bring up about XM, I would hardly ever be
hired by XM's promotional department.

When comparing XM and Sirrius on any matter, I, and others, are obviously going to
have to choose one over the other, and admitting that fact hardly makes one a
promotion.

If it will make you happy, I can give you some things about Sirrius that I like
better than XM...

1) The dog is a cooler mascot.
2) I like that Sirrius doesn't have baseball, which I hate.
3) Sirrius has cooler studios and facilities than XM.
4) Sirrius has Car Talk, XM does not.


> Who the fuck are you trying to kid, "Truth"?????

Feel free to either add me to your killfile, or just skip over any posts you see
with my name.

> I suspect that "Truth" is heavily invested in XM and he is worried
> that once Howard gets on the air over at Sirius that XM will suffer
> financially at the expense of Sirius,

No. Even if I did not have an XM radio now, I would not buy a Sirrius radio just
to get Howard, and then not have all the other channels on XM I like better,
including all the music channels, and both CNN channels, not just ONE like Sirrius
has.

Sure I will admit I would love to have Howard go to XM instead. I won't deny that
at all. Even Howard wanted to go to XM over Sirriius. The Opie & Anthony
thing is what made him tell XM to piss off. He doesn't want anything to do with
them.

Oh, that brings ANOTHER thing I dislike about XM! I hate Opie & Anthony! I wish
Sirrius would have gotten O&A and XM would have Stern.

And the fact that XM makes you PAY extra to listen to a channel that has nothing but
O&A on it is another thing that is stupid. At least Stern will not be on a
premium channel on Sirius, so that is another plus for them.

Problem is, Sirrius may not be around before Stern gets to go over to them.

[Truth]

> > FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than XM or
> > [Sirius,] so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I have a
> > choice
> > to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM for the
> > superior sound quality.
>
> It's true that the NPR/PRI streams are no place to hear music. However,
> they're perfectly adequate for new/information.

I know many people say this, but my ears can not stand the distortion. I can
not even UNDERSTAND what they are saying on the traffic/weather stations, so it is
not even adequate for information, since I can't even understand what the hell is
being said.

I wish I could hear the old time radio channel on XM, but that is so poor, that I
have not been able to listen to it yet. I hope they give that channel some more
bandwidth one day.

> Unless you live in a
> city with more than two NPR/PRI stations,

Yeah, I can get 4 or 5 of them at the same time.

> you cannot hear every program

Usually it is the same exact program on all stations anyway.

> available to you in Sirius. That's the Sirius advantage over broadcast
> Public Radio.

If you are into public radio. I love Car Talk and listen to NPR every week on
the FM to hear it. For some reason, the NPR channel on XM does not carry the
program. Sirrius apparently does. But it sounds better on FM anyway, so no
loss for me.

Now for the rest of NPR, I don't listen to anything else except Ken Nordeen's Word
Jazz, but that is usually on too late for me to listen to anyway.

I loved NPR decades ago when they played Jazz. Now the NPR stations are nothing
but talk programs.

The biggest #1 reason I got my XM radio, was to be able to have a 24 hour Jazz
channel.

I mean REAL JAZZ, just as XM named the channel, NOT NEW AGE, which many stations
today think is Jazz. It is called NEW AGE, not Jazz. They have a NEW AGE
channel in the Jazz category on XM, but I can't stand New Age.

However, they have a channel called BEYOND JAZZ, that I really like and listen to
alot. It is sort of a mix between Jazz and Rock.

[Truth]

> > Isn't one of the points of listning to the radio to hear artists you've
> > never heard of?

Depends. MOST of the formats on FM radio are songs most people have heard
of. Now, I often disagree with management in Radio all my life, but at one
station I worked at, they were changing to a new format and said statistics
showed that the main reasons people changed and tuned out a station, was
because...

1) They didn't KNOW the song.
2) They didn't LIKE the song.

So this is why radio stations tend to play songs that most people will KNOW,
because they love following market research.

I love to listen to Jazz, but I never know what the songs are or who the artists
are, I just like listening to Jazz because it is relaxing and soothing, but not
doctor's office music or crap "lite rock"

> > Expand your world. There is more out there than Led Zeppelin. Discover it.
>
> To me, it's not artists I've never heard, but B sides of artists I've heard
> of but songs I never care to hear.

I always felt the same way. Thus why I can never listen to "Deep Tracks" very
often on XM. All the other channels play songs I know and like, but ones that
have not been played on FM for many many years. And I am always interested
in hearing NEW songs from artists I like, but the only NEW songs that FM
stations play are rap or "hip hop" you can't hear any new rock music on the
radio anymore, thus the need for XM.

> Now XM isn't always like this, but I get
> an awful lot more songs like this on XM than I do on Sirius.

Of course. Sirrius tends to play the same stuff the FM rock stations do, that
I am sick of hearing because they have been overplayed the past several decades
non-stop 24/7.

I have CDs that I can never ever again play, because FM radio has made me sick
of them. Or if I play one, I have to skip over the songs that FM radio has
overplayed to death.

Sirius is like an FM "Classic Rock" station to me. Bleeeech!

I like Classic Rock, but there is a lot of Classic Rock, not just 50 songs.

XM also has a 40s channel which is VERY cool. Sirrius only gets 50, 60, 70
and 80s, XM gets 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90s! More decades!

I wish they got 20s and 30s too.

I like music from the 70s, 80s and 90s, and from the 20s to 40s, but never liked
much of the music from the 50s and 60s.

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:4193DFB2.C518C6C8@sucks.com...
>> >> Sirius has better rural coverage.
>> >
>> > Take a look at their satellite orbits and compare to XM. False. XM
>> > also has
>> > more repeaters so this is not a concern anyway even if it were true.
>>
>> The orbit is exactly what gives Sirius better rural/mobile coverage
>> compared
>> to XM.
>
> How can a Satellite going south over South America give better coverage in
> the
> USA?

There are always two of the three over North America, the same amount of
satellites XM has illuminating North America. Plus, this gives the
satellites a 66% duty cycle, thus extending the life of their satellites.
Regardless of the fact that XM has to launch their ground spare to
supplement one of their satellites which their insurance didn't fully cover,
even if they were in tip top shape, they would not last as long as Sirius'
three satellites.

>> XM has more repeateres because
>
> Stop right there. If they have more repeaters, then that should HELP
> the
> coverage over Sirrius, not make it worse.

It helps the small area in which they cover. If you had a C band satellite
that required a 12 foot dish to pick up and it was so low on the horizon
that only people in Florida could pick it up, but there were a million
terrestrial repeaters for it, would that help this service to become a
million times better than a service with less repeaters? No, of course not.
CHUM has a proposal in Canada to launch a completely terrestrial based
subscription digital radio service. The CRTC is complaining. Why? Because
it only covers 60% of the whole countries population. The reason why Sirius
doesn't have so many repeaters is because they don't need them. They could
build 2000 more but what would be the point if they already have reliable
coverage in those areas?

> I don't have any repeaters in my area, but get both satellites rock solid
> at all
> times.
>
> With Sirrius, you have to be careful to note if the satellites were over
> you or
> not at whatever time it is.

Unless you got some sort of auto tracking dish setup, you don't need to be
careful to note anything. While there are two Sirius sats always above
North America, there is always one in a relatively small loop area over
central Canada. As long as you have a clear view to this area, you won't
have any problems no matter what time it is.

>> >> Sirius has real public radio, including NPR shows.
>> >
>> > FM has real public radio too, and the audio quality is much better than
>> > XM
>> > or
>> > Sirrius, so having Public radio on is not a real big bonus. If I
>> > have
>> > a choice
>> > to listen to something on satellite or FM, I will listen to it on FM
>> > for
>> > the
>> > superior sound quality.
>>
>> You can't get NPR and PRI on FM or AM everywhere. We have neither here.
>
> That is why it is nice to have it on satellite, and both XM and Sirrius
> give it
> to you. Both sound horrible.
>
> Thus, when you do have it on FM, (I can tune in NPR on the FM dial on at
> least 3
> or 4 different spots between 88.1 and 91.9 FM) It sure sounds a lot
> cleaner.
> No added distortion from low rate digital encoding for satellite.
>
>> In
>> fact, there are many areas into which I drive where I cannot receive
>> anything on AM or FM at all during the day.
>
> Nonsense. There is no place you can go where there is nothing on AM!
> You
> have a really poor radio or antenna on it.
>
> I can listen to stations on AM from Canada, Mexico, and many states all
> across
> the USA.
> When Art Bell comes on, I can usually get the same show from around at
> LEAST 10
> different stations on my radios at the same time! No external antenna,
> just
> simple clock radio.

I'm sure you can get stations from all over at night. I can, too, like UK,
France, Spain, New York, Boston, Cleveland, Toronto, etc. But, during the
day on the same radio with the same antenna, I can name of areas where you
will not receive anything on AM or FM. You've obviously never been to
Labrador. The vast majority of Labrador is not covered by AM or FM
broadcast radio. Driving the trans Labrador highway would have been very
quiet without satellite radio. Driving Quebec route 389 would have been
quite silent as well. You can get into places where you are 250km from the
nearest inhabited place, let alone radio station. Most radio stations in
the isolated communities up there run low power because they'd just be
broadcasting into nothingness if they used any more power, and this would be
a waste. Even here on the island of Newfoundland, there are some areas on
the TCH near Springdale that are RF absent, as well as places on the road to
Burgeo or to Baie d'Espoir. It's not just me who experiences this, it's
everyone. You'd need one heck of a setup to pick up anything out in these
areas.

>> You cannot compare what happens
>> to be on FM in your market to what's available to the rest of the
>> continent
>
> True. And even with those of us that have hundreds of FM stations to
> listen
> to, there is not any programming worth listening to most of the day.
> Thus why
> I have to suffer with poor quality audio of satellite radio to get more
> interesting programs, or better selection of music.
>
>> >> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>> >
>> > Yes, all they play is stuff that FM radio has overplayed to death and
>> > we
>> > don't
>> > want to hear anymore.
>>
>> XM has plenty of channels just for that, like Top 20 on 20, MTV Radio,
>> VH1
>> Radio, and KISS-FM which actually used to simulcast an FM station in L.A.
>
> Ok, now those are not rock, those are rap. Usually called "urban" "hip
> hop"
> or whatever it is being called this week.
>

I think "Pop" is the generally accepted name for those channels these days.

> All of them are the exact same format on several channels just like
> Sirrius does
> with the classic rock format.

Those who enjoy classic rock would probably be more apt to notice the
differences in those channels on Sirius

> XM only needs to keep Kiss-XM, and drop the rest as they are all the same
> thing.

I agree, but Pop is Pop-ular, and a lot of people adopting satellite radio
at this time are in a demographic who enjoys this music, and doesn't care
that it's all cookie cutter manufactured music. They can enjoy the same
song being played 200x in a row. Even if they don't enjoy a song when they
first hear it, it is played so many times that they learn to enjoy it.

>> > XM plays stuff we have all heard of, but for some reason, FM radio does
>> > not ever
>> > play anymore.
>>
>> I've had times where I've listened to XM and not recognized one song for
>> an
>> entire hour.
>
> Yes, many channels are like that for me. The Mexican channels, Hear
> Music
> channel, New age channel, Opera channel, Country music channels, African
> music
> channel, etc.
>
> But I recognize every song played on all the rock channels, except the
> channels
> playing new music, because the songs are "new" and nobody knows them yet.
>
> The unsigned artist channel should have songs MOST people here have never
> heard
> of before.

I think this is an excellent channel, and I'll be looking forward to the
addition of the Canadian version of this channel when the CRTC approves both
satellite services.

> In fact, think of all the songs written 2 or 3 years from now that we
> don't know
> yet, but will be classics one day.
>
>> > They have a much larger library, with far fewer repeats.
>>
>> Sirius' library is plenty sufficient. Check this link out, you can see
>> the
>> times and channels your favourite song or artist was played on Sirius:
>> http://www.itsonsirius.com/
>
> Here is the one for XM:
> http://www.xmmonitor.com/played/search
>
> I did a search on both before I decided which service to go with, and was
> disappointed that many of the songs I entered for Sirrius did not find
> results,
> and was actually SHOCKED to see that the XM brought up songs I would have
> bet
> they would never have had.
>
> On the left column on the front page: http://www.xm411.com/ you can
> see
> exactly what songs are playing on each channel RIGHT NOW. It updates
> live
> before your eyes as each song changes to the next.
>
> Does Sirrius have something like this to see the whole spread at once?

I think in addition to the searchable database, www.itsonsirius.com
autorefreshes the page on its own every minute. If you hit the refresh
button manually you will see what is on right at that moment, plus maybe a 5
second delay or so.

> If so,
> please post it. I would like to keep checking Sirrius from time to time
> and
> see any changes they make, neither will be as they are today as the years
> go
> by. I would like to keep tabs on both of them.
>
>> > Hell, just look at how many subscribers XM has and how little Sirrius
>> > has,
>> > and
>> > understand that Sirrius was out there FIRST!
>> > The majority of people obviously see that XM is much better.
>>
>> Sirius' satellites were launched first, XM rolled out nationwide 8 months
>> before Sirius rolled out, so you've got it backwards.
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You say Sirrius was up first, which I
> knew,
> then said XM was out first.
>
> I had to produce programming for Sirrius long before EITHER was available
> to the
> public. Why would I have to give them programming for them to broadcast
> if
> the public didn't have radios yet? I can't answer that question, it
> never
> made sense to me at the time either, but since the programs were
> syndicated on
> regular AM and FM stations too, it was no big deal to send them the
> program
> too. But Sirrius was broadcasting programming long before XM even
> had any
> satellites up.
>
> Perhaps you mean that XM got their asses in gear faster and got radios to
> the
> public faster than Sirrius did, but that was my whole point. They were
> up
> last, and even with a head start, Sirrius is way behind in subscribers.
>
> Take that anyway you want to spin it, but doesn't say much for Sirrius as
> far as
> how they run a business.

Sirius launched their satellites before XM. XM rolled out their service to
the public first as Sirius was not available to the public until 8 months
after, so Sirius did not have a head start on acquiring subscribers. This
was because of the company Sirius contracted to develop the chipset for
their radios screwed up and they were delayed in producing any radios. If
they were broadcasting back then, no one was listening as there was no
radios to pick them up. I don't blame Sirius for this, I blame the chipset
manufacturer, because Sirius has been playing catch-up ever since. XM had
the advantage of having no competition but AM/FM for 8 months. This makes a
difference.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <4193E623.E33F6853@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> If you are into public radio. I love Car Talk and listen to NPR every
> week on
> the FM to hear it. For some reason, the NPR channel on XM does not carry the
> program. Sirrius apparently does. But it sounds better on FM anyway, so
> no
> loss for me.

There is no NPR channel on XM. NPR has an exclusive deal with Sirius.
That includes most of the core NPR shows with the exception of Morning
Edition and All Things Considered, which is exclusive to traditional
broadcast channels.

XM is attempting to start its own "public radio" channel. They are
doing some of their own programming, such as the Bob Edwards show,
and they are buying syndicated content from selected public radio
stations, such as stuff from PRI. There is no NPR on XM.

Sirius, on the other hand, has 2 NPR stations plus a 3rd public
channel for syndicated public radio shows. This includes the
biggies like Car Talk, Wait Wait, Fresh Air, To The Best Of
Our Knowledge, As It Happens, Brain Brew, Motely Fools, Talk Of
The Nation, Prairie Home Companion, etc, etc, etc.

-john-

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

[Mark S.]

> XM also has a 40s channel which is VERY cool. Sirrius only gets 50, 60,
> 70
> and 80s, XM gets 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90s! More decades!
>
> I wish they got 20s and 30s too.
>
> I like music from the 70s, 80s and 90s, and from the 20s to 40s, but never
> liked
> much of the music from the 50s and 60s.

I believe XM's 40's channel covers the 20's and 30's, too. At least when
they did "IT" last they covered back well into the 30's. Sirius used to
have a 90's channel but it turned into the Pulse. People got mad so they
added the 90's stuff back, but still play recent stuff, too. It's still no
90's on 9 though.

[PB]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:4193E8C0.C8B6CFC6@sucks.com...

<snip>
>> > > XM also has a 40s channel which is VERY cool. Sirrius only gets
>> > > 50, 60, 70
> and 80s, XM gets 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90s! More decades!


Sirius does have a 90s channel(well, 90s and music from today is how they
explain it) called "The Pulse" so you may not consider it a 90s channel, but
many probably would.
>

[Truth]

> There is no NPR channel on XM.

http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=133


DOH!

[Bob Haberkost]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:4193DFB2.C518C6C8@sucks.com...
>> >> Sirius has better rural coverage.

> How can a Satellite going south over South America give better coverage in the
> USA?

>> XM has more repeateres because

> Stop right there. If they have more repeaters, then that should HELP the
> coverage over Sirrius, not make it worse.

The point was made that XM needs more repeaters, since their Clarke-belt-located
satellite is lower in the sky than Sirius. He's not saying that it's worse with
repeaters, but rather an indication of how it would be without them. And the writer
also misses that Sirius has THREE satellites (I have to assume that XM has only one,
considering it's in geosynchronous orbit). So there's always one Sirius bird high in
the sky, while the other two on their way or below the equator are recharging, and
otherwise aren't even transmitting.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <4193FA3E.D8FADE4E@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > There is no NPR channel on XM.
>
> http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=133
> DOH!

Would you like a minute to take that one back? Please follow
this link, and read what it says. It is XM Public Radio, and
it has shows from PRI, WGBH, Chicago Public Radio, and news
from the BBC. There is 0% NPR content. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
Nadda. No NPR on XM. None. Not at all.

Do you get it? Doh! It is amazing how many of your postings
feature this same attention to detail in getting the facts.

-john-

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

[Mark S.]

"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:r2Tkd.3299$Bj2.2396@trndny01...
>
> "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
> news:4193DFB2.C518C6C8@sucks.com...
>>> >> Sirius has better rural coverage.
>
>> How can a Satellite going south over South America give better coverage
>> in the
>> USA?
>
>>> XM has more repeateres because
>
>> Stop right there. If they have more repeaters, then that should HELP
>> the
>> coverage over Sirrius, not make it worse.
>
> The point was made that XM needs more repeaters, since their
> Clarke-belt-located satellite is lower in the sky than Sirius. He's not
> saying that it's worse with repeaters, but rather an indication of how it
> would be without them. And the writer also misses that Sirius has THREE
> satellites (I have to assume that XM has only one, considering it's in
> geosynchronous orbit). So there's always one Sirius bird high in the sky,
> while the other two on their way or below the equator are recharging, and
> otherwise aren't even transmitting.

XM has two geosynchronous satellites. One is positioned at 85 degrees West
and the other is at 115 degrees West.

[Just Lou]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:49:20 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
wrote:

>"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
>news:r2Tkd.3299$Bj2.2396@trndny01...
>>
>> "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
>> news:4193DFB2.C518C6C8@sucks.com...
>>>> >> Sirius has better rural coverage.
>>
>>> How can a Satellite going south over South America give better coverage
>>> in the
>>> USA?
>>
>>>> XM has more repeateres because
>>
>>> Stop right there. If they have more repeaters, then that should HELP
>>> the
>>> coverage over Sirrius, not make it worse.
>>
>> The point was made that XM needs more repeaters, since their
>> Clarke-belt-located satellite is lower in the sky than Sirius. He's not
>> saying that it's worse with repeaters, but rather an indication of how it
>> would be without them. And the writer also misses that Sirius has THREE
>> satellites (I have to assume that XM has only one, considering it's in
>> geosynchronous orbit). So there's always one Sirius bird high in the sky,
>> while the other two on their way or below the equator are recharging, and
>> otherwise aren't even transmitting.
>
>XM has two geosynchronous satellites. One is positioned at 85 degrees West
>and the other is at 115 degrees West.
>
XM is also upgrading their satellites. Here's some info:


XM's satellites currently provide excellent performance but continue
to experience progressive solar array power degradation consistent
with that experienced by other Boeing 702 satellites in-orbit. There
has been no meaningful change in the previously predicted rate of
degradation.

XM has now put in place firm contractual arrangements to launch the
spare satellite (XM-3) during the fourth quarter of 2004, and for
Boeing to construct a new ground spare (XM-4) to be completed by the
fourth quarter of 2005. XM has also entered into a contract with Sea
Launch to provide an XM-4 launch, as needed in the future.

Under these contract arrangements, XM's major cash outlays to launch
XM-3 will not arise until the fourth quarter of 2004 and those to
construct XM-4 will not occur until the first quarter of 2005. The
Company has recently raised sufficient funds to launch XM-3, but will
need to obtain insurance reimbursement or other funds to complete
construction of XM-4.

Currently, XM has insurance claims in process relating to the power
degradation trends experienced by the satellites. A group of XM's
insurers recently denied these claims, asserting that the satellites
are still performing above the insured levels and the power trend
lines are not definitive; these insurers also allege XM failed to
comply with certain policy provisions regarding material change and
other matters. The Company will be responding to the insurers'
position and will proceed to settlement discussions, arbitration or
litigation (as needed) to recover the insured losses.

[D Ray]

>
> Hardly. Most of them are heavy metal or experimental music that
> is unlistenable except by the mothers of the people who recorded
> the music. When you get rid of all the trash, you are left with
> one rock channel (Top Tracks), one channel for music professors
> (Deep Tracks), and two 1/2 channels of more mellow stuff (Loft and
> Cafe). Loft and Cafe play so much stuff that nobody has ever
> heard of that they only qualify to be 1/2 channels in my book.
> Everything else on the list is noise and head-banger material.
>
> When you compare listenable classic rock channels, XM has only
> Top Tracks, while Sirius has The Vault, Classic Rewind, and
> Classic Vinyl, so they are 3 to 1 over XM.
>

XM only needs two because they aren't repeating the same Top-20 crap over and over.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <111120041645045534%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Sirius, on the other hand, has 2 NPR stations plus a 3rd public
> channel for syndicated public radio shows. This includes the
> biggies like Car Talk, Wait Wait, Fresh Air, To The Best Of
> Our Knowledge, As It Happens, Brain Brew, Motely Fools, Talk Of
> The Nation, Prairie Home Companion, etc, etc, etc.

Also, "NPR's Performance Today" is on Sirius Symphony Hall 80, and
Kansas Public Radio's "Right Between the Ears" is on Raw Dog 147.

I have two actual NPR stations here in Nashville neither carries "Diane
Rehm," "Tech Nation,"Soundprint," "Justice Talking," "The Infinite
Mind," "Humankind," "Jazz Profiles," "Creators at Carnegie," "Radio
Times," "Chef's Table," "Forum," and "PowerPoint."

If it weren't for PRI on Sirius, I wouldn't get "Odyssey," "The Brian
Lehrer Show," The "Looseleaf Book Co.," "Brain Brew," "Odyssey," "Sound
& Spirit," "Conversations from the World Cafe," "A World of
Possibilities," "World Cafe,"and "As It Happens" from the CBC.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <111120041801386404%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Would you like a minute to take that one back? Please follow
> this link, and read what it says. It is XM Public Radio, and
> it has shows from PRI, WGBH, Chicago Public Radio, and news
> from the BBC. There is 0% NPR content. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
> Nadda. No NPR on XM. None. Not at all.

With all due respect", there are some programs on XM that are also
distributed by NPR ("Only A Game," for example). XM may get them
directly from the producing station, but that station also distributes
through NPR.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<4193E06E.D275568@sucks.com>...
> > We already went over this last week, asswipe.
>
> Then let's not do it again, ok? I will throw in the towel, you can be the winner.

I'll make you a deal. You stick to doing your XM promotional posts
with your worthless opinions on which service plays the better music
instead of trying to make idiotic claims with technical "facts" about
XM and Sirius which always prove to be wrong, and I'll honor your plea
to "not do it again".


> > Remember back when you
> > tried to claim that the XM satellites were in orbit above the U.S. and
> > then you sheepishly agreed with me after I corrected your false
> > statement?
>
> No, but I do remember someone arguing with me about some nonsense, since I never look
> at the names of posters, I only read the messages, I have no idea if that was you or
> not.

Right. Sure. You don't remember what you said a few days ago. Best to
play stupid on that one, huh? Best to try to change the subject from
your false technical statements that you got caught making to some
nonsensical point about not remembering who it was that corrected your
bullshit "facts" that turned out not to be facts at all.


>
> > Now that we have heard the false bullshit (again) from "Truth", I'll
> > repeat the facts:
>
> Since you keep better track of names of posters and who is posting what, why not just
> ignore my posts from now on, it will probably make both of us happier. :)


Yeah. I'm sure you would like that. You keep posting the same false
technical information over and over despite being called on it and
corrected by me and several other people. Sorry, but I won't be
ignoring your repeated posts of incorrect technical information that
is so easily refuted. As long as you keep up that bullshit, I will be
right here to call you on it every time you try to pull out your
previously discredited shit.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<4193E3D5.F292F592@sucks.com>...
> > This is more undisputable proof that "Truth" is a bullshit artist who
> > just makes "facts" up to promote XM.
>
> Considering how many negative things I bring up about XM, I would hardly ever be
> hired by XM's promotional department.
>
> When comparing XM and Sirrius on any matter, I, and others, are obviously going to
> have to choose one over the other, and admitting that fact hardly makes one a
> promotion.
>

Once again you miss the point. What makes you look like a discredited
shill for XM is not your worthless opinions about XM having better
music choices, but the fact that you keep getting caught making
incorrect technical statements about XM and Sirius... some of them
over and over again despite being corrected by several people. Man,
you have to be one dumb mother fucker if you think that you can claim
that the XM satellites are in orbit above the United States (like the
Sirius satellites ACTUALLY are), or claim that Sirius rolled out their
service before XM did, and think that you won't get caught and called
out on those false statements.


And then there is your laughable claims that because XM stock is at
$30 and Sirius stock is at $3 that the XM business is worth 10 times
more than the Sirius business. That alone is proof that you are a
clueless idiot, but despite several people trying to explain the
basics of the stock market to you, you keep repeating the same absurd
and illogical financial analysis based on concepts that you don't even
have a basic understanding of.

I take back my previous suspicion that the reason that you make all
these bullshit claims to promote XM was because you were probably
invested heavily in XM. Someone who actually had a stock portfolio
that includes XM couldn't possibly be as dumb as you are about stock
market basics or the technical facts about the two major satellite
radio companies. I now think that you are just some dumb piss poor
slob who is worried that after sinking a whopping $150 "investment"
into an XM radio, that maybe you made the wrong choice. This has got
to be what's up with you, especially seeing how you have made several
posts pointing out the "huge" $3 per month price difference between XM
and Sirius subscriptions. I don't blame you. I'm sure that there are
lots of people like you who also have a hard time getting together
that extra 10 cents a day that it costs to subscribe to Sirius instead
of XM.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message news:<111120041801386404%john@johnweeks.com>...
> In article <4193FA3E.D8FADE4E@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no NPR channel on XM.
> >
> > http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=133
> > DOH!
>
> Would you like a minute to take that one back? Please follow
> this link, and read what it says. It is XM Public Radio, and
> it has shows from PRI, WGBH, Chicago Public Radio, and news
> from the BBC. There is 0% NPR content. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
> Nadda. No NPR on XM. None. Not at all.
>
> Do you get it? Doh! It is amazing how many of your postings
> feature this same attention to detail in getting the facts.
>
> -john-

Thanks for the real facts John. What a surprise. The man who calls
himself "Truth" got caught AGAIN tring to pass off bullshit that
couldn't make it past simple a fact check.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<4193D470.99836CFB@sucks.com>...
> > > Are you sure that you are not a TROLL? I worked for the biggest
> > > retailer of satellite radios, and I got both systems the day that
> > > they were made available to the public. I had XM for over a year
> > > before I was able to get Sirius.
> >
> > What a surprise. Another lie from "Truth".
>
> That's not even anything I said.

Of course not. That is the correction someone else made to your false
statement... the false statement which you clipped out of this post.
Has that childish tactic actually worked for you before, or was that a
brilliant concept that you just decided to try here for the first
time?

>Now look who the liar is. Why don't you go run for president in
2008,
> you would win.

Pathetic. Absolutely fucking pathetic.

[lab~rat]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:28:53 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
puked:

>"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
>news:8ll7p09k4qo5mku38a2p4jmu14prm4nrmp@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:09:22 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:
>>
>>>> > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I
>>>> > said.
>>>> > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic
>>>> > Rewind.
>>>> > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
>>>>
>>>> 40 Deep Tracks
>>>> 41 Boneyard
>>>> 42 Liquid Metal
>>>> 43 XMU
>>>> 44 Fred
>>>> 45 XM Cafe
>>>> 46 Top Tracks
>>>> 47 Ethel
>>>> 48 Squizz
>>>> 50 The Loft
>>>> 51 XM Music Lab
>>>> 52 Unsigned
>>>> 53 Fungus
>>>> 54 Lucy
>>>>
>>>> All rock.
>>>
>>>Exactly. What this guy means, is "classic rock", the stuff overplayed
>>>on the
>>>FM. In fact, last weekend when using my friend's Sirrius radio, every
>>>music
>>>channel that was English, was classic rock. They just have several
>>>stations
>>>playing the same exact format, classic rock.
>>>
>>>XM has several formats of Rock, not just Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin.
>>>
>>>
>> Do they have the CCR and Van Halen format, too?
>
>Well they do have the Elvis channel, does that count? :-)
>

Elvis Costello?

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

[Mark S.]

"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:7re9p09pfvvmivh3ot98omc23i098dgs5k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:28:53 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
> puked:
>
> >"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
> >news:8ll7p09k4qo5mku38a2p4jmu14prm4nrmp@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:09:22 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:
> >>
> >>>> > I'm into rock music, and I am telling you that I agree with what I
> >>>> > said.
> >>>> > Sirius has 3 rock stations, The Value, Classic Vinyl, and Classic
> >>>> > Rewind.
> >>>> > XM has only 1, Top Tracks.
> >>>>
> >>>> 40 Deep Tracks
> >>>> 41 Boneyard
> >>>> 42 Liquid Metal
> >>>> 43 XMU
> >>>> 44 Fred
> >>>> 45 XM Cafe
> >>>> 46 Top Tracks
> >>>> 47 Ethel
> >>>> 48 Squizz
> >>>> 50 The Loft
> >>>> 51 XM Music Lab
> >>>> 52 Unsigned
> >>>> 53 Fungus
> >>>> 54 Lucy
> >>>>
> >>>> All rock.
> >>>
> >>>Exactly. What this guy means, is "classic rock", the stuff
overplayed
> >>>on the
> >>>FM. In fact, last weekend when using my friend's Sirrius radio, every
> >>>music
> >>>channel that was English, was classic rock. They just have several
> >>>stations
> >>>playing the same exact format, classic rock.
> >>>
> >>>XM has several formats of Rock, not just Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Do they have the CCR and Van Halen format, too?
> >
> >Well they do have the Elvis channel, does that count? :-)
> >
>
> Elvis Costello?

LMAO someone should subscribe to a lifetime plan on Sirius and then a week
later, write a huge complaint letter about how you want your money back
because you thought Elvis Radio was all Elvis Costello!!!

[D Ray]

> Would you like a minute to take that one back? Please follow
> this link, and read what it says. It is XM Public Radio, and
> it has shows from PRI, WGBH, Chicago Public Radio, and news
> from the BBC. There is 0% NPR content. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
> Nadda. No NPR on XM. None. Not at all.
>
> Do you get it? Doh! It is amazing how many of your postings
> feature this same attention to detail in getting the facts.
>

True there is no NPR content on XM; but the most important NPR content
is not on Sirius, either. In fact, NPR's lineup is better than
Sirius', if you ask me -- the only thing I'd really want that XM
doesn't have is Car Talk.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <eaf9681.0411121023.507f3f93@posting.google.com>, D Ray
<david@timecalc.com> wrote:

> > Would you like a minute to take that one back? Please follow
> > this link, and read what it says. It is XM Public Radio, and
> > it has shows from PRI, WGBH, Chicago Public Radio, and news
> > from the BBC. There is 0% NPR content. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
> > Nadda. No NPR on XM. None. Not at all.
> >
> > Do you get it? Doh! It is amazing how many of your postings
> > feature this same attention to detail in getting the facts.
> >
>
> True there is no NPR content on XM; but the most important NPR content
> is not on Sirius, either. In fact, NPR's lineup is better than
> Sirius', if you ask me -- the only thing I'd really want that XM
> doesn't have is Car Talk.

Everyone has their own tastes, and I am glad that you are happy.
But if you look at ratings, and exclude Morning Edition and All
Things Considered (which are not avialable to satellite radio),
most of the top rated NPR shows are on Sirius, while the public
shows on XM are nearly all the lowest rated public radio shows.
The only exception that I saw was the sports show.

-john-

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

[Truth]

> > Sirius', if you ask me -- the only thing I'd really want that XM
> > doesn't have is Car Talk.
>
> Everyone has their own tastes, and I am glad that you are happy.
> But if you look at ratings, and exclude Morning Edition and All
> Things Considered (which are not avialable to satellite radio),

I don't know if it is All things considered, or wait wait, or what it is,
but on Saturdays when I tune in Car Talk on the FM, the XM Public Radio
channel is playing something like All Things, or Wait Wait or some sort of
program I hear on FM NPR stations, so they do have something from NPR.

> most of the top rated NPR shows are on Sirius, while the public
> shows on XM are nearly all the lowest rated public radio shows.

Do either XM or Sirius public radio channels carry Word Jazz or Now Nordeen?

[Truth]

> Well they do have the Elvis channel, does that count? :-)

That seems like a waste of a channel, doesn't it? Even for those that like
Elvis, can anyone listen to nothing but Elvis all the time?

XM has a similar channel with nothing but stuff from Frank Sinatra and
friends.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <4195631A.A05AC324@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > > Sirius', if you ask me -- the only thing I'd really want that XM
> > > doesn't have is Car Talk.
> >
> > Everyone has their own tastes, and I am glad that you are happy.
> > But if you look at ratings, and exclude Morning Edition and All
> > Things Considered (which are not avialable to satellite radio),
>
> I don't know if it is All things considered, or wait wait, or what it is,
> but on Saturdays when I tune in Car Talk on the FM, the XM Public Radio
> channel is playing something like All Things, or Wait Wait or some sort of
> program I hear on FM NPR stations, so they do have something from NPR.

Public radio stations that use AM and/or FM are allowed to carry
programming from other sources than NPR. Just because someone is
affiliated with NPR does not mean that they are exclusively NPR.
Some of the highest rated public shows like Garrison Kielor and
What Do Ya Know are PRI programs, not NPR. In looking at the
XM schedule, you might be hearing What Do Ya Know with Michael
Feldman from Madison, Wisconsin. What Do Ya Know is carried by
a number of public stations, but it is not an NPR show.

-john-

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

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419578E6.71190D44@sucks.com...
>> Well they do have the Elvis channel, does that count? :-)
>
> That seems like a waste of a channel, doesn't it? Even for those that
> like
> Elvis, can anyone listen to nothing but Elvis all the time?
>
> XM has a similar channel with nothing but stuff from Frank Sinatra and
> friends.

It does, but I guess if they had to choose anyone it would have to be Elvis.
I'd say more of it has to do with the added exposure that they will get at
Graceland. You can somewhat compare it to the deal XM struck with Starbucks
on the Hear Music channel, although I'm guessing there's probably more
different people walking into Starbucks everyday than there are visitors to
Graceland, however everyone interested enough in Elvis to visit Graceland
are probably interested enough to buy a satellite radio and listen to Elivs
anytime they wanted.

[Truth]

> > I can listen to stations on AM from Canada, Mexico, and many states all
> > across
> > the USA.
> > When Art Bell comes on, I can usually get the same show from around at
> > LEAST 10
> > different stations on my radios at the same time! No external antenna,
> > just
> > simple clock radio.
>
> I'm sure you can get stations from all over at night. I can, too, like UK,
> France, Spain, New York, Boston, Cleveland, Toronto, etc. But, during the
> day on the same radio with the same antenna, I can name of areas where you
> will not receive anything on AM or FM.

In the summer, I can get many FM stations from other states due to tropospheric
ducting, and I do get AM stations from many states day and night. The fact
that most every FM channel is used in my area is the only reason I don't get the
stations from other states, but when the FM stations go down for transmitter
maintenance, then the other stations on the same frequencies in other states
come in just fine.

> You've obviously never been to
> Labrador. The vast majority of Labrador is not covered by AM or FM
> broadcast radio. Driving the trans Labrador highway would have been very
> quiet without satellite radio.

There is no place on the earth you can go and not get radio. Shortwave, for
one, I can get no matter where I am. But anywhere in the US you can get AM
or FM stations.

> Burgeo or to Baie d'Espoir. It's not just me who experiences this, it's
> everyone. You'd need one heck of a setup to pick up anything out in these
> areas.

Not really. Of course, even in a major metropolitan area, many of the cheap
boomboxes and radios of today do have a hard time picking up even the strong
local stations.

> >> You cannot compare what happens
> >> to be on FM in your market to what's available to the rest of the
> >> continent
> >
> > True. And even with those of us that have hundreds of FM stations to
> > listen
> > to, there is not any programming worth listening to most of the day.
> > Thus why
> > I have to suffer with poor quality audio of satellite radio to get more
> > interesting programs, or better selection of music.
> >
> >> >> Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, all they play is stuff that FM radio has overplayed to death and
> >> > we
> >> > don't
> >> > want to hear anymore.
> >>
> >> XM has plenty of channels just for that, like Top 20 on 20, MTV Radio,
> >> VH1
> >> Radio, and KISS-FM which actually used to simulcast an FM station in L.A.
> >
> > Ok, now those are not rock, those are rap. Usually called "urban" "hip
> > hop"
> > or whatever it is being called this week.
> >
>
> I think "Pop" is the generally accepted name for those channels these days.

XM has a U-POP channel, and they don't play rap at all. Don't worry though,
soon there won't be any songs left for these rappers to steal and talk over, and
then they won't be able to make (I mean STEAL) any more songs.

> > XM only needs to keep Kiss-XM, and drop the rest as they are all the same
> > thing.
>
> I agree, but Pop is Pop-ular, and a lot of people adopting satellite radio
> at this time are in a demographic who enjoys this music, and doesn't care
> that it's all cookie cutter manufactured music. They can enjoy the same
> song being played 200x in a row. Even if they don't enjoy a song when they
> first hear it, it is played so many times that they learn to enjoy it.

In Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, that is called torture. They play
the same rap over and over again and the prisoners do NOT learn to enjoy it,
they go insane. Thus why the Americans play those songs, they know how awful
they are. It would not be torture if they were playing good music.

> >> > XM plays stuff we have all heard of, but for some reason, FM radio does
> >> > not ever
> >> > play anymore.
> >>
> >> I've had times where I've listened to XM and not recognized one song for
> >> an
> >> entire hour.
> >
> > Yes, many channels are like that for me. The Mexican channels, Hear
> > Music
> > channel, New age channel, Opera channel, Country music channels, African
> > music
> > channel, etc.
> >
> > But I recognize every song played on all the rock channels, except the
> > channels
> > playing new music, because the songs are "new" and nobody knows them yet.
> >
> > The unsigned artist channel should have songs MOST people here have never
> > heard
> > of before.
>
> I think this is an excellent channel, and I'll be looking forward to the
> addition of the Canadian version of this channel when the CRTC approves both
> satellite services.

Why waste bandwidth with another channel addition so the other channels
suffer? Just play the Canadian artists on the same channel with the American
Artists.

> > In fact, think of all the songs written 2 or 3 years from now that we
> > don't know
> > yet, but will be classics one day.
> >
> >> > They have a much larger library, with far fewer repeats.
> >>
> >> Sirius' library is plenty sufficient. Check this link out, you can see
> >> the
> >> times and channels your favourite song or artist was played on Sirius:
> >> http://www.itsonsirius.com/
> >
> > Here is the one for XM:
> > http://www.xmmonitor.com/played/search
> >
> > I did a search on both before I decided which service to go with, and was
> > disappointed that many of the songs I entered for Sirrius did not find
> > results,
> > and was actually SHOCKED to see that the XM brought up songs I would have
> > bet
> > they would never have had.
> >
> > On the left column on the front page: http://www.xm411.com/ you can
> > see
> > exactly what songs are playing on each channel RIGHT NOW. It updates
> > live
> > before your eyes as each song changes to the next.
> >
> > Does Sirrius have something like this to see the whole spread at once?
>
> I think in addition to the searchable database, www.itsonsirius.com
> autorefreshes the page on its own every minute. If you hit the refresh
> button manually you will see what is on right at that moment, plus maybe a 5
> second delay or so.

People who still have not decided between the two services should keep both of
these sources bookmarked and checked them from time to time, then they can see
which service they prefer. Checking songs they like in each database and
noting which service doesn't seem to include songs they like would also be a
good way to see which is better.

> >> Sirius' satellites were launched first, XM rolled out nationwide 8 months
> >> before Sirius rolled out, so you've got it backwards.
> >
> > You just contradicted yourself. You say Sirrius was up first, which I
> > knew,
> > then said XM was out first.
> >
> > I had to produce programming for Sirrius long before EITHER was available
> > to the
> > public. Why would I have to give them programming for them to broadcast
> > if
> > the public didn't have radios yet? I can't answer that question, it
> > never
> > made sense to me at the time either, but since the programs were
> > syndicated on
> > regular AM and FM stations too, it was no big deal to send them the
> > program
> > too. But Sirrius was broadcasting programming long before XM even
> > had any
> > satellites up.
> >
> > Perhaps you mean that XM got their asses in gear faster and got radios to
> > the
> > public faster than Sirrius did, but that was my whole point. They were
> > up
> > last, and even with a head start, Sirrius is way behind in subscribers.
> >
> > Take that anyway you want to spin it, but doesn't say much for Sirrius as
> > far as
> > how they run a business.
>
> Sirius launched their satellites before XM. XM rolled out their service to
> the public first as Sirius was not available to the public until 8 months
> after, so Sirius did not have a head start on acquiring subscribers.

You miss the point. They were on the air first. The fact that XM got radios
to the public first just shows what bad business people Sirius are. Why
didn't they have their radios out first if they were on the air first? And
they WERE sending programming for many months before any XM radios were out,
because I was one of the people sending them programming to broadcast every
week.

> This
> was because of the company Sirius contracted to develop the chipset for
> their radios screwed up and they were delayed in producing any radios. If
> they were broadcasting back then, no one was listening as there was no
> radios to pick them up. I don't blame Sirius for this, I blame the chipset
> manufacturer, because Sirius has been playing catch-up ever since.

That's ridiculous.

What if XM music programmers decide to play nothing but farts on all channels
24/7 instead of music or other programming. Then I say that is not XM's
fault, they contracted programmers to format their channels and it is the
PROGRAMMERS that screwed up, not XM.

Sirius hired idiots, so it is Sirrius's fault for hiring idiots then.

Besides, if I came out TODAY with a third satellite radio service, I could blow
both XM and Sirrius out of the water, catch up is not hard when you have a
better product and service to offer!

I would not waste bandwidth on traffic, weather, Mexican, or Sports. No
redundant channels with the same music formats on 3 or 4 channels at a time.
(Many times I see the same artist playing on more than one channel at the same
time! Even the same songs play on different channels!)

Get rid of all the garbage, and have good quality audio on ALL channels. I
would offer FREE service, no subscription fees at all, until I put the other two
out of business. I wouldn't do what Sirrius does, and say: "Gee, we are way
behind XM, so let's charge MORE than XM does so we can catch up."

I could go on for days with ideas to become the winner in the race, including
actually letting people in stores HEAR how much better my service sounded than
XM and Sirrius.

> XM had
> the advantage of having no competition but AM/FM for 8 months. This makes a
> difference.

Beta was first to market, yet it made no difference to VHS winning over the
consumer. (although with an inferior product in this case)

One site I just googled claims Beta had a 2 YEAR head start too.


However, we owe Sirrius a great deal for the quality of programming on XM!
If Sirrius had not had commercial free music channels, XM might not have
commercial free music channels today, just to compete with Sirrius who started
that.

XM is quick to take what Sirrius has that is good, and make XM better.
Sirrius allegedly had better audio quality at the beginning and it made XM
improve the quality. We are now told that XM has better quality than
Sirriius, although I still say both sound like crap and neither are even close
to FM quality yet. At the rate they keep adding channels, I only see the
quality going down instead of up. Especially since the consumer doesn't seem
to care or even notice.

If Bush repeats that Iraq has WMD, then the consumers believe it. If XM and
Sirius say that their services are near CD quality sound, then the consumer
believes it. What is really happening is that they use the word "DIGITAL"
allot and people tend to think the word DIGITAL means "high quality" when it
can mean just the opposite. Just like how every digital cell phone today
sounds a hundred times worse than all the analog cell phones we had in the
80s. I still have my analog cell phone and it blows away any cell phone on the
market today in sound quality. No one on the other end can tell it is a cell
phone. There is no way you can call me on a digital cell phone and trying to
fool me that you are not on a digital cell phone. I don't care which cell
phone on the market today you buy.

[Truth]

> also misses that Sirius has THREE satellites (I have to assume that XM has only one,
> considering it's in geosynchronous orbit).

XM has three, but one is a stand by. TWO are on at all times, they are affectionately
called: "ROCK" and "ROLL"

The majority consensus from people all across the country is that XM has better reception
than Siririus.

But just as you will always find people that say margarine tastes better than butter, or
GE televisions are better than Sony, you will always have people out there that take the
wrong side and defend it with passion.

[Truth]

> > Would you like a minute to take that one back? Please follow
> > this link, and read what it says. It is XM Public Radio, and
> > it has shows from PRI, WGBH, Chicago Public Radio, and news
> > from the BBC. There is 0% NPR content. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
> > Nadda. No NPR on XM. None. Not at all.
>
> With all due respect", there are some programs on XM that are also
> distributed by NPR ("Only A Game," for example).

Exactly. And not all NPR stations broadcast the same shows either. He
is just nitpicking like a lawyer trying to make the XM public radio
channel to be a completely different animal than an FM public radio
channel and try to be the winner by some legal technicality, because he
can't just join in the discussion and call "public radio" public radio
like the rest of us are doing.

> XM may get them
> directly from the producing station, but that station also distributes
> through NPR.

He knows. He wants to win the argument on a legal technicality of
copyright or what ever it is just so he can be the winner.

He can be the winner, I will concede. It's not worth fighting over.

[Truth]

> I believe XM's 40's channel covers the 20's and 30's, too. At least when
> they did "IT" last they covered back well into the 30's.

I think you may be right. In fact, I have heard 60s songs on the 70s channel
too, or the other way around a few times.

I find it interesting that channels 2 and 3 are not being used, and XM channels
start with 4 for 40s, 5 for 50s, etc. Did they have planned at one time to
have 2 for 20s and 3 for 30s?

> Sirius used to
> have a 90's channel but it turned into the Pulse. People got mad so they
> added the 90's stuff back, but still play recent stuff, too. It's still no
> 90's on 9 though.

XM keeps messing with formats and channels too. Now they are running a
program that says they are going to have Christmas music on several channels
including channel 83. Channel 83 is the Disco channel. Why should they take
away the Disco channel to play Christmas music? Why not take away the DEMO
channel 1 for a few weeks to play it, or one of the many Mexican channels
instead of the ONE Disco channel?

Better yet, use channel 200, the special events channel that is never
broadcasting anything everytime I go by it.

They will also take over the XM COMEDY channel to air shows of Opie and Anthony,
when O&A have their OWN channel they should stay on. Many times XM will
simulcast the same program on more than one channel. That is stupid.

[Truth]

> >> > > XM also has a 40s channel which is VERY cool. Sirrius only gets
> >> > > 50, 60, 70
> > and 80s, XM gets 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90s! More decades!
>
> Sirius does have a 90s channel(well, 90s and music from today is how they
> explain it) called "The Pulse" so you may not consider it a 90s channel, but
> many probably would.

Both services should name their channels better. XM has a channel called
CHROME. How the hell are people supposed to know that CHROME means DISCO?
Just call the channel DISCO. Likewise, the HANK'S PLACE channel should be
called CLASSIC COUNTRY and SUNNY should be called EASY LISTENING, etc.

[Truth]

> > I don't know anyone that feels that XM has a more limited playlist than
> > Sirrius
> > or less of a selection of music and formats. Who are these people you
> > know?
>
> Sometimes less is more. Great taste, less filling! You can just fill your
> music library with every possible conceivable song ever made and say wow
> look at all the songs we have, or go through it and remove the rubbish and
> give people a service that they won't get bored listening to.

Of course, I agree. But I recognize and like most of the songs on XM, they
are all hits that were played on the radio, not unheard of B-sides. (except for
DEEP TRACKS which is supposed to be the deeper cuts on the albums the stations
avoided)

> I don't think
> Sirius has less of a selection of formats, some are the same and some are
> different. We wouldn't want both services to be clones of each other.

I don't want two services of different formats that are not compatible with all
receivers. If both services could be received on the same radios, then great.

It was frustrating when we all had problems of playing our VHS or Beta tapes on
friends machines who were the other format, or sharing files for programs
designed for macs that only worked on IBM PCs, or vice versa.

Here we are all over again. We need COMPATIBILITY. Just like it is fine
that some FM stations play one thing and other stations play something else, we
can tune back and forth, ALL of us, with the same radios we ALL have.

We shouldn't have to make a choice between XM and Sirrius, we should be able to
tune back and forth between everything they both broadcast.

You can have cable or satellite dish, and we can all get the same networks on
both.

> Some
> genres have to be different to give people reason to choose one service over
> another.

Eventually, like with VHS and Beta, PC and Macs, one has to go away so everyone
can be compatible with each other.

VHS, PC, XM. Beta, Mac, Sirrius.

I go with the first bunch. I don't want to have an expensive Beta or Mac
that I can't buy tapes or software for eventually. I don't want an expensive
Sirrius radio that I won't be able to receive anything on eventually when it
goes away.

> >> It really comes down to a matter of personal
> >> preferance.
> >
> > Right, some people like Football and Sports, and some like Music over
> > sports.
>
> I really don't have much of an interest in sports at all, although that is a
> draw for some to Sirius.

Right. But since I don't like sports, I chose to stay away from the one
service that seemed to cover way too much sports. Unfortunately, after I went
with XM, they are now threatening to add baseball and sports too.

> Sirius' orbit allows for better reception while mobile. Before they
> launched and when they were first licenced, Sirius planned on using a fixed
> geostationary orbit above the equator, just like XM, but then they decided
> since that the overwhelming majority of users of the service would be
> listening in cars that using a molniya orbit would work much better, and it
> does. However, they did underestimate how many people in homes would end up
> using the service, but this is not a nail in the coffin as it works great in
> many peoples homes.

Why is it then that everyone I know that has Sirrius, can only use it in the
home, because the reception is so poor in the car, and they can only use their
XM radios for in the car?

Someone is lying to me here. I never actually used Sirrius while driving, so
I am going by what the majority of people across the country are saying.
Perhaps that is a mistake. But after researching both systems of satellites,
I can see where it makes more sense that XM is as stable as it is.

Whatever. No sense to keep arguing about it. Playing with the two systems,
I get much better reception with XM, and with XM I use it in the car too, and
never have had any problem with reception ever in the car. Always full
strength on the signal meter. And that is with the antenna INSIDE the car.


> If I start hearing repeats or overplayed songs on Sirius I can
> switch to XM until I get sick of hearing tonnes of obscure songs in a row.

There is nothing obscure to me on the rock stations, but then again, I have a
very wide range of rock music and artists that I like and know.

Some people are just very limited to a certain type or a few artists and get
turned off by certain other types.

I can listen to Punk and Alternative, and also Classic Rock and Heavy Metal.
Most people usually only like one type.

Now with XM's 70s channel, I can agree with you, they shove too much crap on
that channel. When people think of 70s music, they want the stuff that is on
the 70s collection that they sell on all those infomercials on TV late at night,
yet you hardly hear any of those songs on XM's 70s channel.

> This is the way I feel about many of the XM channels. They play a lot of
> songs that no one knows or cares about. I don't mean songs that no one
> knows but are cool and you're glad you've discovered them, either. I mean
> songs that have been long forgotten for a reason.

I will give you that for their 70s channel. I was really looking forward to
that channel and thought it would be my favorite, but I can't leave that channel
on for too long, TOP TRACKS is more like a 70s channel than the 70s channel is.

> While we don't have any CC channels here

What? Do you live in the US? They own most of the stations in every market
of the US, usually around 6 stations per market.

> Requests if not on the playlist for that hour or any adjacent hours got one
> or two spots during the hour, and if room had to be made, F rotation songs
> got the bump.

Is this a Canadian station? Never heard of anything like that system in the
US.

> You've got to remember not everyone is unhappy with FM for their song
> selections

Then why are people buying Satellite radios? Everyone is unhappy with FM
radio, including people that work at them and are forced to play the crap.

> I disagree. I think how you describe Deep Cuts accurately describes how I,
> and others who prefer Sirius, feel about the XM service as a whole.

Here is the difference. Deep Cuts are songs from popular artists that were
not played on FM radio, the other channels have the songs from popular artists
that were played on FM radio.

Sirrius and XM play hits from FM radio, but Sirrius has a smaller music library,
and plays more of the overplayed FM music.

> > XM also has Art Bell and Coast to Coast, which Sirrius does not.
>
> I'm not big into talk programming, but I'm sure there are others here who
> are so I'll let them comment on what Sirius has that XM doesn't. I think
> there was already a thread started about talk left, talk right, talk
> central, etc.

Left and Right propaganda channels I avoid completely.

> I like both and to me, there's something
> that each service can offer me that the other can't and I think they
> compliment each other very well.

Did you own both VHS and Beta at the same time too? Just curious. I tend to
wait to see which format takes over first, so I am not stuck with a peice of
expensive equipment that you can't use after a while because no one supports it
anymore.

I finally went with XM, seeing that Sirrius was just about dead. Then Stern
came around and is trying to revive Beta again by promoting Sirrius right as it
was going to finally die.

> > One reason for trying again, was that in the begging, Sirrius was supposed
> > to
> > have superior sound quality than XM, but since, reports are now that XM is
> > superior in sound quality to Sirrius. So I wanted to hear for myself
> > and make
> > the determination which one sounds better. Know what I found?
> >
> > BOTH of them sound like crap! Neither is better, both SUCK in terms of
> > audio
> > quality.
> >
> > What they need to do, is get rid of all the sports, Mexican, and weather
> > traffic
> > channels and give some of that bandwidth to the stations people actually
> > listen
> > to.
>
> Well, what they really need to do is get more bandwidth!

You can't just make more bandwidth, you have to get rid of the channels that are
not in English for one, so that the other channels can use their bandwidth for
better quality audio.

> Someone obviously
> listens to all of those stations, otherwise they'd be removed.

Who listens to the Mexican channels? All the illegal aliens who somehow,
being illegal in the country, can get credit cards (requires social security
number) to buy service with?

They already are being served with the majority of the AM and FM bands now.

One reason for me to get XM, is so that I could hear some English language
programming on radio again in the US.

> Both XM and
> Sirius regularly do surveys to determine what's popular and what's not.

That is always a big mistake. The majority of people never have time or take
time to participate in surveys. Market research caters to unemployed mall
rats or those that actually talk to telemarketers, and then big business forces
the wants of those people on the majority of the population.

> Something that I really disapprove of is Sirius planning on launching mobile
> video services.

Again, probably the fault of surveys and market research. No one wants this,
but they will do it because their pie charts tell them to.

> While they have long ago reserved the bandwidth for this
> service, this is bandwidth that could be used for adding more channels or
> improving the sound quality on channels which already exist.

Exactly.

> XM isn't
> innocent here, either. XM is going to be sucking up their bandwidth with
> mobile video channels, and they already are using up bandwidth with WxWorx,
> weather and graphical data for aircraft and stormchasers, which only .00001%
> of XM's customers are using or even have the equipment to use it.

Exactly. We already have great GPS systems and weather services, they should
stick to programming radio.

Imagine the national weather service saying they are going to provide music and
talk shows, or GPS systems that play music.

The most ridiculous thing is people buying cell phones with cameras in them.
What next? Canon and Minolta putting telephones in their cameras?

> I think the main reason sports channels are on satellite radio, or radio in
> general is because people sit at home gathered around the radio to listen to
> the game, but so that people who cannot be at home by the TV, but in the car
> or elsewhere can listen to the game.

Ah, but the sports nut always plans well in advance to be in front of his big
screen TV to watch the games.

Imagine listening to a game of checkers being broadcast on the radio. Not
good.

> Besides, not all sports fans can
> afford the NFL sunday ticket package to get every game including the out of
> market games.

What? These stupid games are all over the TV, in fact they interupt many of
the programs I want to watch and can't because these games are everywhere and
forced on everyone.

> will be listening instead of watching. Also, I know of sports fanatics who
> do have the big screen HDTV's and satellite dishes with NFL sunday ticket
> who use Sirius to listen to their favourite announcers on there and watch
> the game (delayed 20 seconds with their TIVO) at the same time.

No one does this. They could never stand to hear what happened 20 seconds
after it happens, these people would go insane if you made them listen to it
that way!

> I agree
> with you on the sound quality of the traffic and weather channels, it sounds
> like my Atari talking, but on the same token, this means the bandwidth they
> are using up is very minimal.

Got to see the glass as half full, eh? The bandwidth is TOO MUCH because they
shouldn't have those channels at all in the first place.

> Probably all of them together would take up
> the same amount of bandwidth as 2 music stations if that.

And that is really sad that they wasted that much just to make impossible to
understand trash quality audio of commericals and traffic and weather that no
one wants to hear anyway.

NO ONE.. Not ONE single customer will ever listen to more than ONE of those
channels anyway, because they are all going to be cities they don't live in!
What a WASTE of bandwidth!

Let the LOCAL stations carry that stuff. And let them eventually learn that
when everyone is listening to satellite radio, that they didn't want all the
weather and traffic and that is why they ran away from local radio. If XM and
Sirrius do weather and traffic too, they will never learn this important lesson.

> >> I'll be the first to say that neither are CD quality.
> >
> > Neither are CASSETTE quality! And I am NOT exaggerating either. In
> > fact,
> > after listening to satellite radio for a few hours, then switching to an
> > FM
> > station, you REALLY REALLY appreciate the drastic improvement in audio
> > quality
> > that the FM stations have, even WITH the over processing many have!
>
> > In fact, I even prefer the undistorted sound of Art Bell over AM radio
> > than
> > listening to the distortion satellite radio adds to talk programs because
> > they
> > feel talk programs don't need as much bandwidth as the music channels and
> > make
> > all talk shows sound like even the host of the show is talking over a
> > digital
> > cell phone!
>
> I think C-QUAM AM stereo sounds great, too,

Well, better than satellite radio anyway.

> >> However, I'm willing
> >> to sacrifice some sound quality/resolution for selection.
> >
> > I would rather get rid of half the channels, and improve the quality on
> > the
> > channels people actually listen to. We don't need dozens of Mexican
> > channels, Sports and weather channels. In fact, no matter which market
> > you
> > live in, no one will ever be listening to MOST of the weather and traffic
> > channels, so what a waste of bandwidth! Get rid of them all! If
> > anyone
> > wants weather or traffic, they can tune to an AM station and get it
> > instantly.
>
> For the record, a lot of Hispanic channels were removed within
> the last year

You mean there were even MORE than the 4 or 6 they have now? UNBELEIVABLE!
Who the hell did they think were listening to those stations? Illegal aliens
without social security numbers that can't get credit cards to subscribe in the
first place?

> , however I woudn't be suprised if some would come back a few
> years down the road. They are the fastest growing ethnicity in the US.

They are criminals that became criminals the moment they entered illegally and
broke the law to do so. Why are we rewarding criminals by supplying them
with radio programming?

This makes them feel welcome, and they tell their relatives that if they come
over too, they don't even need to learn English, because everything from radio,
tv and instruction manual on everything sold in the US is in Spanish for them.

Talk about an incentive to break the law!

Let's have a rapist channel too so that rapists can call in and discuss how best
to rape people.

> I
> can't get weather or traffic on AM here instantly.

Oh yes you can. Go to Radio Shack and ask them how.

> What they need to do is
> use RDS on FM or some sort of signalling on AM to alert me when the traffic
> or weather is on so I can press a button and have it switch to that channel
> when it is on.

But a cheap weather radio. Most of those family service walkie-talkies have
them built in, so do scanners, and probably cell phones too.

> >> I'm not going to
> >> argue against your comparison of FM sound quality against satellite radio
> >> either. I know many would say you're crazy, but I'm also a believer that
> >> analog has the ability to sound much better than digital.
> >
> > There is nothing to argue, it is just a fact. Too many of the
> > channels on
> > XM and Sirrius sound like digital cell phones with that watery distortion
> > sound
> > so well known with the crap cell phones today. I still have my cell
> > phone from
> > the 80s and it sounds just like talking over a regular phone line because
> > it is
> > analog, not digital.
> >
> > Technology peaked in the 80s. Now everything in audio and video quality
> > is
> > going downhill and getting worse again.
>
> life. Digital was the only way to go. It allows the use of the same amount
> of bandwidth to hold 5x as many calls or more.

Not good. Same reason that satellite radio sounds so bad, that is the wrong
way to think about it. I still use my analog cell phone and keep the good
quality audio for at least another two years before the FCC says they don't have
to support it anymore. Bastards. Then I won't have any cell phone service,
but then the cell phone companies won't be making any money off of me anymore
either.

> Sound quality has
> artifacting, but no static and most people were happy. Plus, battery life
> is 10x better using digital over analog so again people are happy.

Stupid people are always happy. Take one bite out of the tree of knowledge
and LEARN something and get smart, and then the world is not a paradise anymore
and happiness goes away.

Let the stupid people be happy and not know how they have been screwed over,
while being charged more money at the same time.

> lasts about a month in standby mode. If XM or Sirius transmitted analog
> using the same amount of bandwidth a typical FM broadcast station takes up,
> they'd be able to fit around 20 stations.

20 channels of good sounding audio, or hundreds of channels that make your ears
cry?

A very easy choice. Give me the 20 channels.

> able to fit 10. I think people are happier having 120 stations rather than
> 10 or 20.

STUPID people are. That is why they took the crap VHS with 6 hours of poor
quality video over BETAs 2 hours of superior quality.

They were sure happy. The intelligent people just had to follow along and get
VHS so we could be complatible, have tapes to buy and rent and trade with
friends and relatives.

> Oh, by the way, most phone lines these days are digital, too.

No kidding. My friends and I used to be able to send music to each other over
the phone lines that sounded better than satellite radio. Couldn't do that
anymore as soon as they started with call waiting and all that other crap.
For a while, if you ordered a phone line without call waiting, you still could
get the good quality line, now no matter what you order, we all get the crap
quality lines that you can't send good quality audio over anymore.

> >> Again, to me this
> >> is a tradeoff. We trade in the static we get if there is a less than
> >> perfect signal, the multipath interference, the overcompression some
> >> stations have, co-channel interference and fading for a steady all or
> >> nothing digital signal, along with comes some artifacting.
> >
> > Same thing with a less than perfect Satellite signal, in fact, even worse.
> > With analog, you can still hear the program with a weak signal, but with
> > satellite and digital, it goes completely silent and you hear nothing.
> > I
> > would rather have a weak analog signal I could listen to than nothing to
> > listen
> > to at all.
>
> Actually, you don't have to have a perfect satellite signal, or a perfect
> digital signal for it to decode. There is a window of signal strength in
> which there is audible static on an analog signal where a digital signal
> will decode perfectally, even moreso thanks to FEC, spatial and temporal
> diversity. Ask anyone who

Ask anyone that wasted money on an HDTV set that found out that they can't get
the signal at all, but the analog signal still comes in just fine.

Digital is all or nothing. Analog you can get much farther and even with weak
signals.

> >> I've come
> >> accustomed to the sound quality on satellite radio and I'm used to it;
> >
> > See that is the problem. People are getting used to the crap quality,
> > then
> > companies keep making it worse and worse to save more money so long as the
> > majority never complain about it and get "used to it" and accept crap and
> > be
> > happy as the subscription rates will increase over the years and the
> > quality
> > will get worse.
>
> I don't think XM or Sirius would even be there if they were limited to
> analog technology.

Hey, CDs are digital and they sound just fine. I can make an MP3 file that you
can't tell the difference between it and the Denon test CD it was made from in a
studio with $6000 speakers.

They just CHOOSE to make it sound like crap. Listen to XM COMEDY and LAUGH
USA. Both with the same programming of human speech, but one sounds ok, and
the other sound like shit. Their CHOICE for it being that way, not because it
is digital.

> I'd rather have a digital service with 120 channel than
> no satellite radio at all.

I'd rather have 10 channels of satellite with quality, than 120 channels of
crap.

If you can't do it right.... don't do it at all!

> > I will NEVER get used to the horrible video quality of broadcasts today,
> > and all
> > the lip synching problems on all news clips today. Everytime Larry
> > King, for
> > instance, shows a video clip, the audio is NEVER in sync with the video
> > and it
> > has been like this for a few YEARS already. No need for them to fix it
> > so long
> > as none of you care or you all just get USED to it.
>
> Again, people are preferring having thousands of TV channels to having just
> a dozen. I agree, there's not much better in picture quality than a direct
> analog C band feed, even HDTV.

I watch HDTV in stores and laugh. I can get better quality video from my old
Umatic analog video decks from the 80s. Hell, I have VHS machines that can
give me better quality.

> However it's not feasable to have all of
> todays TV channels in analog, there's just not enough space to put them all.

Nor do we need all those channels. I only watch about 3 - 7 channels max
total.

> > It SUCKS. And it is pathetic that video quality and broadcasts in the
> > 80s
> > sounded and looked better than they do today in the year 2004.
>
> Well if you can figure out a way that we can have the same amount of TV
> channels that we have today in the same quality we had then you'll be rich!

No, people are getting RICH by making the quality worse and by adding more
channels of crap that we don't even want to watch.

> > If you would have told people back in the 80s, that audio and video
> > quality
> > would be much worse in the year 2004, they would probably have laughed at
> > you,
> > yet see how it is actually true and fact.
>
> Some people prefer being rid of static and having the amount of selection
> they have today, even if it means digital artifacting.

Again, stupid people that don't understand the difference.

Just like those that say DVD has MORE resolution than VHS. Idiots! What
good is 1000 lines of resultion of a crap MPEG2 pixelated picture, when you can
have less lines of resolution of the PURE analog signal before it got hacked up?

> >> it's
> >> not bad enough for it to bother me. The average Joe will agree, but
> >> audiophiles may cringe listening to it.
> >
> > Audiophiles will not listen to it at all. Hopefully just normal regular
> > people will complain until they improve it. We should all be willing
> > to give
> > up all the sports, weather, traffic, and mexican channels in exchange for
> > better
> > quality on the channels we all actually listen to.
>
>

Jesus Christ, how long is this thing? I have to stop here.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <419583C7.B8673F64@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> There is no place on the earth you can go and not get radio. Shortwave,
> for
> one, I can get no matter where I am. But anywhere in the US you can get AM
> or FM stations.

That may be true of home stereo tuners and portable radios. But for
cars, with the high energy ignition and all the RF noise from the
computers, radio reception is just not what it used to be. I have
found a lot of dead areas where you cannot pick up a single AM or
FM station at night. Then there are the valleys between hills and
mountains, and the Mississippi River gorge where nothing gets down
in there at the river level where the highway was built.

-john-

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

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <4195864F.F33CEE@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> He knows. He wants to win the argument on a legal technicality of
> copyright or what ever it is just so he can be the winner.

To be technical, I think you are admitting that I am correct.

-john-

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

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <419584F4.667A76C7@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> The majority consensus from people all across the country is that XM has
> better reception
> than Siririus.

Not this silly argument again. We have proven that XM has poorer
quality signal across much of the US due to being lower on the
horizon. They do fill in major cities with repeaters, but that
doesn't help for rural coverage.

Sirius has low-orbit satellites in higher inclination orbits that
more fully cover the US, and up into Canada (where XM is all but
dark). Sirius has far fewer ground stations because they have a
much better signal over the continental USA.

I have XM and Sirius side by side in my truck, and I have confirmed
that Sirius has far better rural reception, while XM is far better
in downtown Minneapolis (due to the local ground station).

-john-

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

[Boston Blackie]

In article <121120042354156395%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Sirius has low-orbit satellites in higher inclination orbits that
> more fully cover the US, and up into Canada (where XM is all but
> dark). Sirius has far fewer ground stations because they have a
> much better signal over the continental USA.

Finally, the answer to my original question, you CAN get Sirius in
Canada (whew!).

I have three Sirius receivers, only one of which is locked into a car.
The other two are used around the house, usually by just setting the
antenna on a window ledge. Once I discovered one of the antennae had
fallen off the ledge and was laying on the floor, but the radio kept on
working!

[Bob Haberkost]

"Boston Blackie" <bbblackie@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bbblackie-49EFBA.07590013112004@library.airnews.net...
> In article <121120042354156395%john@johnweeks.com>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>> Sirius has low-orbit satellites in higher inclination orbits that
>> more fully cover the US, and up into Canada (where XM is all but
>> dark). Sirius has far fewer ground stations because they have a
>> much better signal over the continental USA.
>
> Finally, the answer to my original question, you CAN get Sirius in
> Canada (whew!).
>
> I have three Sirius receivers, only one of which is locked into a car.
> The other two are used around the house, usually by just setting the
> antenna on a window ledge. Once I discovered one of the antennae had
> fallen off the ledge and was laying on the floor, but the radio kept on
> working!

I've got a better one for you. A few months ago, we had some local vandalism in our
neighbourhood, and so as part of my nightly close-up-the-car routine, I'd remove the
magnetic-mount antenna and stick it back into the trunk. The next morning, on more
than one occasion, I just got in the car and drove off, and never noticed, in a
20-mile commute away from the centre of town, that I shouldn't be getting the
satellite considering the antenna's location, because I was. It was only in the last
mile or so that I started getting dropouts.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419584F4.667A76C7@sucks.com...
> > also misses that Sirius has THREE satellites (I have to assume that XM
has only one,
> > considering it's in geosynchronous orbit).
>
> XM has three, but one is a stand by. TWO are on at all times, they are
affectionately
> called: "ROCK" and "ROLL"

One is a ground spare that they are being forced to launch due to solar
panel problems on their existing satellites. Sirius also has spares but we
only count the satellites that they are using now, unless you're interested
in the spares to help you judge the debts and future debts each company is
going to be in.

> The majority consensus from people all across the country is that XM has
better reception
> than Siririus.

Where is this majority?

> But just as you will always find people that say margarine tastes better
than butter, or
> GE televisions are better than Sony, you will always have people out there
that take the
> wrong side and defend it with passion.

I don't use fanboys' opinions to judge which service covers better. I need
numbers, physical evidence, EIRP readouts, footprint maps, terrain maps
showing degrees of elevation in the sky which cannot see XM's sats but can
see Sirius'. Talk to long haul truck drivers and ask them which works
better across the country, especially in mountainous areas.

[Truth]

> > That seems like a waste of a channel, doesn't it? Even for those that
> > like
> > Elvis, can anyone listen to nothing but Elvis all the time?
> >
> > XM has a similar channel with nothing but stuff from Frank Sinatra and
> > friends.
>
> It does, but I guess if they had to choose anyone it would have to be Elvis.
> I'd say more of it has to do with the added exposure that they will get at
> Graceland. You can somewhat compare it to the deal XM struck with Starbucks
> on the Hear Music channel, although I'm guessing there's probably more
> different people walking into Starbucks everyday than there are visitors to
> Graceland, however everyone interested enough in Elvis to visit Graceland
> are probably interested enough to buy a satellite radio and listen to Elivs
> anytime they wanted.

That Hear Music channel is another one that is a waste of bandwidth. One song
could be classical, the next jazz, the next one Prince, and just a big mess of
random music. Usually, a person wants to hear a particular type of music.

[Truth]

> > There is no place on the earth you can go and not get radio. Shortwave,
> > for
> > one, I can get no matter where I am. But anywhere in the US you can get AM
> > or FM stations.
>
> That may be true of home stereo tuners and portable radios. But for
> cars, with the high energy ignition and all the RF noise from the
> computers, radio reception is just not what it used to be.

Actually, you don't have those problems anymore, and the tuners in stock radios are
much better than they used to be.

> I have
> found a lot of dead areas where you cannot pick up a single AM or
> FM station at night.

Again, this is a problem with the radio or antenna that you have. I would be able
to bring a portable radio to those same areas and pick up all sorts of stations.

In fact, I have actually done this for friends who have expensive home stereo
systems with outdoor external antennas that can't get in certain stations, then I
bring a portable radio over and pull in all sorts of stations they can't get with
the antenna on the roof and that expensive home stereo tuner.

> Then there are the valleys between hills and
> mountains, and the Mississippi River gorge where nothing gets down
> in there at the river level where the highway was built.

You would be surprised what I would be able to pick up in those areas.

[Truth]

> I have XM and Sirius side by side in my truck, and I have confirmed
> that Sirius has far better rural reception, while XM is far better
> in downtown Minneapolis (due to the local ground station).

So in fact, you confirmed that neither is better, you had problems with both.

I have found never to have a problem with XM, and to have problems with
Sirrius.

[Truth]

> > Sirius has low-orbit satellites in higher inclination orbits that
> > more fully cover the US, and up into Canada (where XM is all but
> > dark). Sirius has far fewer ground stations because they have a
> > much better signal over the continental USA.
>
> Finally, the answer to my original question, you CAN get Sirius in
> Canada (whew!).

A friend of mine spent last summer on a trip from the US all through Canada
to Alaska, and was able to use his XM radio the entire trip.

> I have three Sirius receivers, only one of which is locked into a car.
> The other two are used around the house, usually by just setting the
> antenna on a window ledge. Once I discovered one of the antennae had
> fallen off the ledge and was laying on the floor, but the radio kept on
> working!

Right. I found putting the antenna near the window did not give me the
best signal, but just having it on the floor in the middle of the room is
always much better.

[Truth]

> > The majority consensus from people all across the country is that XM has
> better reception
> > than Siririus.
>
> Where is this majority?

Various sources, from reviews, magazines, hams, broadcast engineers, internet,
friends, etc.

> > But just as you will always find people that say margarine tastes better
> than butter, or
> > GE televisions are better than Sony, you will always have people out there
> that take the
> > wrong side and defend it with passion.
>
> I don't use fanboys' opinions to judge which service covers better. I need
> numbers, physical evidence, EIRP readouts, footprint maps, terrain maps
> showing degrees of elevation in the sky which cannot see XM's sats but can
> see Sirius'.

See, now that is the LAST thing I would look at. I have been in radio long
enough to know that all those things don't mean crap, and that in the real
world, things are never what they are supposed to be according to the charts,
formulas and paper.

If all the math and numbers say point A should have a stronger signal than point
B, but point B has a stronger signal, then I take the facts, not the numbers.

In fact, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out for people why the charts
and numbers and whatnot did not reflect what was actually happening.

> Talk to long haul truck drivers and ask them which works
> better across the country, especially in mountainous areas.

That is exactly what I do, and I take that over all the other "theories"

[Truth]

> > He knows. He wants to win the argument on a legal technicality of
> > copyright or what ever it is just so he can be the winner.
>
> To be technical, I think you are admitting that I am correct.

Sure. The way a court finds that a person suing McDonalds for millions
of dollars for spilling coffee on themselves was also LEGALLY correct
under a court of law. But to people in the real world, a person that
spills coffee on themselves does not deserve millions of dollars, nor is
it the fault of McDonalds.

In a court of law, you would most likely win the argument.

Yes.

[Bob Haberkost]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:41967688.D6586929@sucks.com...
>> > He knows. He wants to win the argument on a legal technicality of
>> > copyright or what ever it is just so he can be the winner.
>>
>> To be technical, I think you are admitting that I am correct.
>
> Sure. The way a court finds that a person suing McDonalds for millions
> of dollars for spilling coffee on themselves was also LEGALLY correct
> under a court of law. But to people in the real world, a person that
> spills coffee on themselves does not deserve millions of dollars, nor is
> it the fault of McDonalds.

> In a court of law, you would most likely win the argument.

I think you're both wrong, but you're equally stubborn so we'll never see the end of
this dispute. Apples and Oranges. Take the repeaters out of the equation, and then
argue. Sheesh.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41967438.75DC2AEF@sucks.com...
> > > There is no place on the earth you can go and not get radio.
Shortwave,
> > > for
> > > one, I can get no matter where I am. But anywhere in the US you
can get AM
> > > or FM stations.
> >
> > That may be true of home stereo tuners and portable radios. But for
> > cars, with the high energy ignition and all the RF noise from the
> > computers, radio reception is just not what it used to be.
>
> Actually, you don't have those problems anymore, and the tuners in stock
radios are
> much better than they used to be.
>
> > I have
> > found a lot of dead areas where you cannot pick up a single AM or
> > FM station at night.
>
> Again, this is a problem with the radio or antenna that you have. I
would be able
> to bring a portable radio to those same areas and pick up all sorts of
stations.
>
> In fact, I have actually done this for friends who have expensive home
stereo
> systems with outdoor external antennas that can't get in certain stations,
then I
> bring a portable radio over and pull in all sorts of stations they can't
get with
> the antenna on the roof and that expensive home stereo tuner.
>
> > Then there are the valleys between hills and
> > mountains, and the Mississippi River gorge where nothing gets down
> > in there at the river level where the highway was built.
>
> You would be surprised what I would be able to pick up in those areas.

Hey if you think you can pick up a 100w FM station transmitting from the top
of a 2 storey building from 250km away with your tabletop radio, I'd almost
pay you to go there and see you try it. I'm telling you, there are places
so isolated in North America that you haven't been to before where AM and FM
broadcast band signals do not go. Sure, shortwave works, I'm not arguing
that but if F layer absorption is active (i.e. daytime hours) AM does not
cover these areas I speak of for crap. Tropo is very very very uncommon in
the northern latitudes, especially when we're talking north of 50 here.
Your best bet on FM broadcast band would be sporadic E, but this is not
something you can count on everyday. The telephone service uses
troposcatter or satellite when they can't get the troposcatter array to
work. I'm just talking about the areas with roads, too. You could fly up
to Alert, Nunavut and you'd be over 1,000 miles from the nearest broadcast
band transmitter. I don't care if you got a 17 element beam cut exactly for
the frequency of the nearest station, unless there's some special ehanced
propagation going on like Sporadic E, you're not going to pick up diddley
squat.

[Truth]

> Hey if you think you can pick up a 100w FM station transmitting from the top
> of a 2 storey building from 250km away with your tabletop radio, I'd almost
> pay you to go there and see you try it.

I pick up 10 watt stations from 50 miles away, with no tower on either end.

What area doesn't have any station within 250 thousand miles from it in the US
that you are having a problem with?

> I'm telling you, there are places
> so isolated in North America that you haven't been to before where AM and FM
> broadcast band signals do not go.

My friend goes by road from the US to Alaska through Canada and always has
something to listen to. Now with XM, he has more, but with AM, FM, CB, Ham
Radio, Weather Radio, Shortwave, scanners and whatnot, there is always something
to listen to everywhere.

> Sure, shortwave works, I'm not arguing
> that but if F layer absorption is active (i.e. daytime hours) AM does not
> cover these areas I speak of for crap. Tropo is very very very uncommon in
> the northern latitudes,

Hmmmm, I never seem to have any problems, nor anyone I know. Radio waves don't
follow land boundaries or stay away from north areas, they go everywhere.

You just have to know how to tune them in. I had a show on an FM station in
the 80s in which I got callers from THREE STATES and it was only a 3000 watt FM
on a tiny tower in the backyard of the station, not one on a downtown
skyscraper. Yet decades later, a company had to simulcast that station's
programming on two OTHER FM stations and still complains that the poor ratings
are due to poor coverage area. Funny how no one had problems tuning in
the signal from THREE states to just the ONE station when I was putting on some
good programming worth tuning in.

> Your best bet on FM broadcast band would be sporadic E, but this is not
> something you can count on everyday.

A good tuner and antenna, and I am always happy. You just can't buy your
radios from Walmart. But you don't need to spend over $150 for one either.

> I'm just talking about the areas with roads, too. You could fly up
> to Alert, Nunavut and you'd be over 1,000 miles from the nearest broadcast
> band transmitter.

Why would I want to do that? This reminds me of the hams that try and put up
a hypothetical situation to try and show when Morse Code would actually be
useful. The best one was being stranded at the North Pole at a payphone in
which the microphone of the phone was broken and you could only use the touch
tone pad to communicate.

How pathetic that one needs to make up such an impossible situation before they
can try to prove their point, and even THEN it doesn't work, because when you
call the operator and pound in morse code, who is going to understand Morse Code
on the other end?

We don't live at the north pole thousands of miles from the nearest
transmitter. We all can pick up Am and Fm stations. Anyone with access
and posting to this newsgroup has internet service and lives near plenty of
stations.

> I don't care if you got a 17 element beam cut exactly for
> the frequency of the nearest station, unless there's some special ehanced
> propagation going on like Sporadic E, you're not going to pick up diddley
> squat.

Yet people at the south pole use radio to communicate just fine, and so do
submarines under the world's oceans.

Hell, look at that tiny rover all the way on Mars! You don't even see a big
antenna or satellite dish on that thing at all, yet it can send and receive info
just fine, and that is more than a few thousand miles away too.

You can say you can't get in any AM and FM stations, but I don't seem to have
any problem, no matter where in the country I am or travel to.

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419686CF.CD780E5C@sucks.com...
> > Hey if you think you can pick up a 100w FM station transmitting from the
top
> > of a 2 storey building from 250km away with your tabletop radio, I'd
almost
> > pay you to go there and see you try it.
>
> I pick up 10 watt stations from 50 miles away, with no tower on either
end.
>
> What area doesn't have any station within 250 thousand miles from it in
the US
> that you are having a problem with?

Umm, km is the abbreviation for Kilometers. Mi is the abbrevation for
Miles. If I were to be talking about kilomiles, it would probably be
abbreviated kmi, but who's ever heard of kilomiles? 10 watts for a 50 mile
distance is not inconceivable because you're not underneath the radio
horizon at 88MHz.

> > I'm telling you, there are places
> > so isolated in North America that you haven't been to before where AM
and FM
> > broadcast band signals do not go.
>
> My friend goes by road from the US to Alaska through Canada and always has
> something to listen to. Now with XM, he has more, but with AM, FM, CB,
Ham
> Radio, Weather Radio, Shortwave, scanners and whatnot, there is always
something
> to listen to everywhere.

First we were talking about AM and FM broadcast band, now you expand this
into including CB, Ham, WX radio, Shortwave, and scanner frequencies, plus
XM. Of course a couple out of that group are always going to have something
to listen to. I'm telling you there are places where roads reach that AM
and FM broadcast band signals during the day do not. Don't try to
extrapolate extranneous meanings out of my statement. Driving to Alaska
yields more civilization than going the same distance north but on the East
coast. Alaska's population is 15x greater than that of Labradors, and
Labrador is further south.

> > Sure, shortwave works, I'm not arguing
> > that but if F layer absorption is active (i.e. daytime hours) AM does
not
> > cover these areas I speak of for crap. Tropo is very very very uncommon
in
> > the northern latitudes,
>
> Hmmmm, I never seem to have any problems, nor anyone I know. Radio waves
don't
> follow land boundaries or stay away from north areas, they go everywhere.

I said TROPO stays away from northern areas. That's a fact, look it up.
How often do you hear of tropospheric ducting occuring in Alaska? Never,
because Tropo occurs mostly in the tropics. If you're getting enhanced
conditions that far north, it's not from tropo. Just like aurora scatter.
You're not going to see that happen very often if you live in Hawaii. Sorry
but some forms of propagation have very much to do with where you're located
on Earth. You say you don't have any problems. Are you trying to tell me
that for you the F layers don't absorb your AM broadcast band signals during
the day? You can pick up the exact same stations during the day as you can
at night? I guess you're the magic man!

> You just have to know how to tune them in. I had a show on an FM
station in
> the 80s in which I got callers from THREE STATES and it was only a 3000
watt FM
> on a tiny tower in the backyard of the station, not one on a downtown
> skyscraper. Yet decades later, a company had to simulcast that
station's
> programming on two OTHER FM stations and still complains that the poor
ratings
> are due to poor coverage area. Funny how no one had problems tuning
in
> the signal from THREE states to just the ONE station when I was putting on
some
> good programming worth tuning in.

The difference between 3kW and 30kW is 10db. A whole lot of extra
electricity for not that much more range. I'd say poor coverage in later
years has to do with co-channel interference cropping up from the additional
stations showing up over the decades of time.

> > Your best bet on FM broadcast band would be sporadic E, but this is not
> > something you can count on everyday.
>
> A good tuner and antenna, and I am always happy. You just can't buy
your
> radios from Walmart. But you don't need to spend over $150 for one
either.

A Watkins-Johnson receiver won't even pick up squat on the TLH in places nor
autoroute 389.

> > I'm just talking about the areas with roads, too. You could fly up
> > to Alert, Nunavut and you'd be over 1,000 miles from the nearest
broadcast
> > band transmitter.
>
> Why would I want to do that? This reminds me of the hams that try and
put up
> a hypothetical situation to try and show when Morse Code would actually be
> useful. The best one was being stranded at the North Pole at a payphone
in
> which the microphone of the phone was broken and you could only use the
touch
> tone pad to communicate.

I think most hams would know that there isn't a payphone at the North Pole.
At the South Pole there is a satellite telephone which takes prepaid phone
cards. CW does get through white noise better than voice. There are
digital modes that get through just as good or better but not any that you
can decode with your brain. I know people that live in Alert, Nunavut.
There's a Canadian Forces base up there. It doesn't even just have to be
there. I mentioned several locations where there are roads that I've driven
on where you will not pick up anything on the AM or FM broadcast band during
the day. Shortwave will work, Ham will work, satellite radio will work.
There's not a car setup that will get you anything on AM or FM broadcast
during the day in many places along the TLH, autoroute 389, the road to
Burgeo or to Harbour Breton.

> How pathetic that one needs to make up such an impossible situation before
they
> can try to prove their point, and even THEN it doesn't work, because when
you
> call the operator and pound in morse code, who is going to understand
Morse Code
> on the other end?

I wouldn't consider the situation to those who live and work in Alert to be
impossible. But actually picking up any radio signals on the AM or FM
broadcast bands during the day under normal circumstances is impossible.

> We don't live at the north pole thousands of miles from the nearest
> transmitter. We all can pick up Am and Fm stations. Anyone with
access
> and posting to this newsgroup has internet service and lives near plenty
of
> stations.

Just because I'm somewhere now and live somewhere where there's high speed
internet access and AM/FM stations doesn't mean I don't drive to places that
don't have any and you can't get any. Many people got cabins along the TCH
in Labrador because the land is dirt cheap, there's good fishing and
hunting, and you're far away from the stresses of modern day life. The only
thing that works there is satellite radio and satellite dishes, plus HF
modes of communication.

> > I don't care if you got a 17 element beam cut exactly for
> > the frequency of the nearest station, unless there's some special
ehanced
> > propagation going on like Sporadic E, you're not going to pick up
diddley
> > squat.
>
> Yet people at the south pole use radio to communicate just fine, and so do
> submarines under the world's oceans.

There you go again. We were talking about AM/FM broadcast band radio and
you start taking it to mean electromagnetic radiation in general across the
entire spectrum. Of course shortwave is going to work in Antartica, of
course Ham is going to work, too. However, I highly doubt anyone is down
there listening to KISS-FM on their Tivoli Model One!!

> Hell, look at that tiny rover all the way on Mars! You don't even see a
big
> antenna or satellite dish on that thing at all, yet it can send and
receive info
> just fine, and that is more than a few thousand miles away too.

There's a gigantic array of huge dishes used to talk to it, though, but
that's not the point. Is the mars rover jamming to K-Rock? No, of course
not. Plus, you're working with microwave frequencies, not VHF, not MW, and
the only loss factors you have to deal with is free space loss, which at
that distance is enormous, but if the moon was in the way, you're not going
to be able to transmit through that. Unfortunately here on Earth, we have
much more path loss characteristics to deal with other than free space loss.

> You can say you can't get in any AM and FM stations, but I don't seem to
have
> any problem, no matter where in the country I am or travel to.

I'm sure 99% of Americans never do travel to areas where this would be a
problem for them unless you're in a tunnel in the boonies or something.
However, I go to areas where it is a problem.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <419686CF.CD780E5C@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> Hmmmm, I never seem to have any problems, nor anyone I know. Radio waves
> don't
> follow land boundaries or stay away from north areas, they go everywhere.

Mr Truth -- what is your problem? Do you enjoy being an ass, or
are you a 12 year old kid with a snot nose, or can one person really
be so ignorant of so many things as you are and still be able to use
a computer?

You either don't get out much, or you have no clue what is really
going on in the outside world. If you have nothing valuable to
contribute, then don't post anything. The drivel that you are
making up is just plain silly. It is nonsense and has no basis in
reality.

Consider yourself on probation, and if your posting doesn't improve,
you go into my USENET kill file.

-john-

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

[Boston Blackie]

In article <419686CF.CD780E5C@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> Hell, look at that tiny rover all the way on Mars! You don't even see a big
> antenna or satellite dish on that thing at all, yet it can send and receive
> info just fine, and that is more than a few thousand miles away too.

Well, it sometimes uses repeaters :{)

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft_rover_antennas.html

[The Billy]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:02:42 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <419686CF.CD780E5C@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmmmm, I never seem to have any problems, nor anyone I know. Radio waves
>> don't
>> follow land boundaries or stay away from north areas, they go everywhere.
>
>Mr Truth -- what is your problem? Do you enjoy being an ass, or
>are you a 12 year old kid with a snot nose, or can one person really
>be so ignorant of so many things as you are and still be able to use
>a computer?
>
>You either don't get out much, or you have no clue what is really
>going on in the outside world. If you have nothing valuable to
>contribute, then don't post anything. The drivel that you are
>making up is just plain silly. It is nonsense and has no basis in
>reality.
>
>Consider yourself on probation, and if your posting doesn't improve,
>you go into my USENET kill file.
>
>-john-


I'm sure that will keep him up late at night, and in check.

What kind of pompous fuck are you, that you think he would give 2
fucks if he is in danger of ending up in your killfile?

Looking at your website, you are a wack job.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <c05dp0doe5kl2ogaisncel0ieafo8c2jq5@4ax.com>, The Billy
<me@here.com> wrote:

> What kind of pompous fuck are you, that you think he would give 2
> fucks if he is in danger of ending up in your killfile?
>
> Looking at your website, you are a wack job.

Based on your command and useage of the English language, I
have no doubts that you are an expert on being a wack job.

-john-

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

[The Billy]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:47:55 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <c05dp0doe5kl2ogaisncel0ieafo8c2jq5@4ax.com>, The Billy
><me@here.com> wrote:
>
>> What kind of pompous fuck are you, that you think he would give 2
>> fucks if he is in danger of ending up in your killfile?
>>
>> Looking at your website, you are a wack job.
>
>Based on your command and useage of the English language, I
>have no doubts that you are an expert on being a wack job.
>
>-john-

Is that all you got?

[The Billy]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:47:55 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
<john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <c05dp0doe5kl2ogaisncel0ieafo8c2jq5@4ax.com>, The Billy
><me@here.com> wrote:
>
>> What kind of pompous fuck are you, that you think he would give 2
>> fucks if he is in danger of ending up in your killfile?
>>
>> Looking at your website, you are a wack job.
>
>Based on your command and useage of the English language, I
>have no doubts that you are an expert on being a wack job.
>
>-john-

By the way, isn't there a Dungeons and Dragons game awaiting you
somewhere?

Have you ever touched a woman's pussy, outside of your birth?

[Boston Blackie]

In article <131120041747555897%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>
> Based on your command and useage of the English language, I
> have no doubts that you are an expert on being a wack job.
>
> -john-

Well, that did it. I had to go and look at your website, John. It's
quite interesting. Have you seen this one:
http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/sf/fotoarch.htm

[Truth]

> > What area doesn't have any station within 250 thousand miles from it in
> the US
> > that you are having a problem with?
>
> Umm, km is the abbreviation for Kilometers.

What country are you in? I figured you were in the US having XM and
Sirrius.

Here is the States, we use Miles. When we see K, it means 1000.

> First we were talking about AM and FM broadcast band, now you expand this
> into including CB, Ham, WX radio, Shortwave, and scanner frequencies, plus
> XM.

Don't forget CD and Cassette! When I go on road trips, I have so much to
listen to, by the time I am just started having fun, I end up at my destination.

> I think most hams would know that there isn't a payphone at the North Pole.

But the CW lovers will use that to try and come up with a case in which Morse
Code will actually be useful.

Never mind that no Police, Fire or Paramedics need to know Morse Code to use
their radio communications equipment.

> CW does get through white noise better than voice.

No it doesn't, because at the other end, the person will most likely not know
CW, only voice, so in order for the message to get through, the people listening
have to UNDERSTAND it.

Why do you think commercials are in voice, and not CW? Because they want to
reach as many listeners as possible with their message.

On many binary groups you will see people wasting time spending hours posting in
Yenc that most people are not going to be able to use anyway, but note that all
the spam on those groups are NOT in Yenc, they post normal. Why? Because
they want EVERYONE in that group to be able to see their spam, not just the few
with Yenc encoding.

> > Hell, look at that tiny rover all the way on Mars! You don't even see a
> big
> > antenna or satellite dish on that thing at all, yet it can send and
> receive info
> > just fine, and that is more than a few thousand miles away too.
>
> There's a gigantic array of huge dishes used to talk to it, though

Yes, on this end. Yet on that end, there are no huge dishes.

> > You can say you can't get in any AM and FM stations, but I don't seem to
> have any problem, no matter where in the country I am or travel to.
>
> I'm sure 99% of Americans never do travel to areas where this would be a
> problem for them unless you're in a tunnel in the boonies or something.

Right. So the Satellite argument that it is good in areas with no radio is
really not a good selling point.

The best thing about Satellite, is even when the DJ talks, or a caller is put
on, they can say whatever they want and feel, talk just the way they do in real
life, and nothing is cut out or bleeped. HOW REFRESHING!

Either people are going to start waking up and allow normal conversation on
regular radio and television too, or it is surely going to die.

[Truth]

> Consider yourself on probation, and if your posting doesn't improve,
> you go into my USENET kill file.

I am going to beg you to PLEASE put me in it now. Since you obviously have
no self control and don't know how to just skip over posts by people you don't
like, I think that would be the best thing.

[Truth]

> I'm sure that will keep him up late at night, and in check.
>
> What kind of pompous fuck are you, that you think he would give 2
> fucks if he is in danger of ending up in your killfile?

They always PROMISE to put you in a killfile, yet never do it. They continue
to read every one of your posts and reply to everyone of them.

[Mark]

Why do people compare digital technology to analog technology?

Try making a comparison aka Dish Network and DirecTV.

[Cooperstown.Net]

"Mark" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:af9hp01amgcmtbfpe0t7o254ohmfog7e1m@4ax.com...
> Why do people compare digital technology to analog technology?
>
> Try making a comparison aka Dish Network and DirecTV.

Analog vs. digital isn't the big difference. It was prohibitive to develop
and stock both Beta and VHS titles. Whereas XM and Sirius each have their own
bandwidth. Neither can lock the other out of content or shelf space.

On the other hand XM and Sirius can each "fill up" and have no room for a
new channel without taking another one away. That's crucially important because
it means that XM can't just offer everything Sirius offers and then some, the
way VHS outpaced and obsoleted Beta.

There will always be room for both services, no matter who comes to own
them.

Jerome



----== 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 =---

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <af9hp01amgcmtbfpe0t7o254ohmfog7e1m@4ax.com>, Mark
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

> Why do people compare digital technology to analog technology?

It is a natural thing to compare. Perfect analog technology
is always going to be better than digital technology since the
digital version is only an approximation of the analog original.
In addition, our sense appear to be closer to analog systems
than digital systems, so our human interfaces are basically
analog system. The problem is that an alalog system will
never be perfect. Therefore, at some points in time, analog
will be better than digital, and at other points in time,
digital will be better than analog.

We live in interesting times. Right now, we are making the
switch to digital TV since the digital version is better than
the analog version. But music went digital 20 years ago, and
now the analog stuff has caught up and is equal to or better
than digital, and many hi-fi buffs are going back to analog.

-john-

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

[Boston Blackie]

In article <151120040932099695%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Right now, we are making the
> switch to digital TV since the digital version is better than
> the analog version.

Depends on how you define "better." If "better" means more channels for
broadcasters to program for free, or if "better" means a squashed
spectrum to allow more revenue generating services, it's "better."

Frankly, until the content of the programming changes, digital is no
"better" than analogue, IMHO.

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:419811AF.D9D3EB9@sucks.com...
>> > What area doesn't have any station within 250 thousand miles from it in
>> the US
>> > that you are having a problem with?
>>
>> Umm, km is the abbreviation for Kilometers.
>
> What country are you in? I figured you were in the US having XM and
> Sirrius.
>
> Here is the States, we use Miles. When we see K, it means 1000.

Actually, K is Kelvin, k means 1000 not K. Wasn't it you before who said
that signals do not stop at boundaries? So why would you assume that
someone who listens to XM and Sirius is in the US? They could be in Cuba,
Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, among other places,
especially with Sirius which has been received as far south as Panama and XM
has been picked up in the Azores. In this case, I am in Canada. While you
in the states are more accustomed to miles, km is still the generally
accepted abbreviation for kilometers. Look on the speedometer on your car
or someone elses car. Did you think those little numbers meant that you
were going 100,000 miles an hour? Kilomiles, give me a break.

>> First we were talking about AM and FM broadcast band, now you expand this
>> into including CB, Ham, WX radio, Shortwave, and scanner frequencies,
>> plus
>> XM.
>
> Don't forget CD and Cassette! When I go on road trips, I have so much
> to
> listen to, by the time I am just started having fun, I end up at my
> destination.

So now you're twisting this to include CD and cassette! My original
statement still stands. For the price of buying one CD a month, I have
satellite radio, and it's not the same 12 songs over and over again. I take
long road trips. Like 3,000 or 4,000 mile road trips a dozen times a year
so I spend quite a bit of time in my car. If you are going anywhere from
here, you have to drive 565 miles just to get off the island. The closest
US border crossing is about 1100 road miles away and puts you into middle of
nowhere Maine. The amount of AM/FM stations I go through when I can get
them is innumerable and driving from market to market you get to hear
repeats even more often. It's nice to have the same station all the time on
satellite radio.

>> I think most hams would know that there isn't a payphone at the North
>> Pole.
>
> But the CW lovers will use that to try and come up with a case in which
> Morse
> Code will actually be useful.

I find CW fun myself and that's why I use it.

> Never mind that no Police, Fire or Paramedics need to know Morse Code to
> use
> their radio communications equipment.

Why should they have to? They use VHF/UHF short range repeater assisted
radio systems. Those repeaters still ID in CW, though.

>> CW does get through white noise better than voice.
>
> No it doesn't, because at the other end, the person will most likely not
> know
> CW, only voice, so in order for the message to get through, the people
> listening
> have to UNDERSTAND it.

That's not a reason. I could say CW gets through better than voice in all
circumstances because not all the world speaks English, and you could have a
whole conversation with internationally accepted Q signals and abbreviations
in CW. Given that both parties know CW and both parties speak the same
language, if propagation conditions deteriorated to the point where the
voice was barely audible anymore and could not be understood, CW would get
through the white noise better. If you are having a wireless conversation
on ham radio on HF, 90% of the time the person is going to know CW so it is
a viable option there.

> Why do you think commercials are in voice, and not CW? Because they want
> to
> reach as many listeners as possible with their message.

Of course, and it's faster, too, but commercials are on commercial radio and
TV stations with tall towers and lots of power designed to cover a certain
area, and those advertisement spots are sold to companies who know exactly
what area and what demographics are going to be listening to their
commercials. You don't see a car dealership in Little Rock buying
advertising space on an FM radio station in Chicago.

> On many binary groups you will see people wasting time spending hours
> posting in
> Yenc that most people are not going to be able to use anyway, but note
> that all
> the spam on those groups are NOT in Yenc, they post normal. Why?
> Because
> they want EVERYONE in that group to be able to see their spam, not just
> the few
> with Yenc encoding.

So what binaries are spammers posting in plain text? You're comparing not
only apples to oranges, but to peaches, palmagranites and cantelopes, too.

>> > Hell, look at that tiny rover all the way on Mars! You don't even see
>> > a
>> big
>> > antenna or satellite dish on that thing at all, yet it can send and
>> receive info
>> > just fine, and that is more than a few thousand miles away too.
>>
>> There's a gigantic array of huge dishes used to talk to it, though
>
> Yes, on this end. Yet on that end, there are no huge dishes.

No because there's a big antenna on the rover transmitting to a satellite
orbiting mars which has big dishes to relay the rovers signals to Earth.

>> > You can say you can't get in any AM and FM stations, but I don't seem
>> > to
>> have any problem, no matter where in the country I am or travel to.
>>
>> I'm sure 99% of Americans never do travel to areas where this would be a
>> problem for them unless you're in a tunnel in the boonies or something.
>
> Right. So the Satellite argument that it is good in areas with no radio
> is
> really not a good selling point.

It depends on the person. For me it is. For those who are in the same
market where electric cars are viable because they never drive more than 20
miles away from home then no it's not a good selling point because they got
their same AM/FM stations readily available to them at all times. You start
to drive more than 100 miles away from home you're going to run into
different stations and maybe not stations with your favourite music on it.
Driving to the southern US it's hard not to hear a country music station.
If you like country music, that's great but if you like anything else you're
going to be pulling your hair out.

> The best thing about Satellite, is even when the DJ talks, or a caller is
> put
> on, they can say whatever they want and feel, talk just the way they do in
> real
> life, and nothing is cut out or bleeped. HOW REFRESHING!
>
> Either people are going to start waking up and allow normal conversation
> on
> regular radio and television too, or it is surely going to die.

Finally something we agree on!

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <bbblackie-55EA2F.10103415112004@library.airnews.net>,
Boston Blackie <bbblackie@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <151120040932099695%john@johnweeks.com>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> > Right now, we are making the
> > switch to digital TV since the digital version is better than
> > the analog version.
>
> Depends on how you define "better." If "better" means more channels for
> broadcasters to program for free, or if "better" means a squashed
> spectrum to allow more revenue generating services, it's "better."
>
> Frankly, until the content of the programming changes, digital is no
> "better" than analogue, IMHO.

I agree. When they say "digital cable", they don't mean that they
are carrying a better quality picture due to being digital, they
mean that they squised everything down so a large number of channels
can fit in the space where only a few analog channels previously
fit. You can get some prety horriable results doing that.

Dish and Direct TV seem to do a better job at managing the trade-off
between space and quality than the cable TV systems that I have seen.

But when it comes to over the air TV, the digital system is far
better than the analog system, in my opinion. Even with the same
old-style analog TV input, the digital system gives you crystal
clear pictures with no ghosts or snow, and the option of 5.1 surround
sound is great. Head to head, the Digital TV system is far better
than the Analog TV system. The only drawback seems to be that
the digital stuff needs far more power, and has far less range.

-john-

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

[Boston Blackie]

In article <151120041122385810%john@johnweeks.com>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Dish and Direct TV seem to do a better job at managing the trade-off
> between space and quality than the cable TV systems that I have seen.

We have Dish in my shop and when I'm in my edit bay I can switch to it
on my master monitor. The compression is such that the parts of the
picture that move always seem out of focus while the static elements are
sharp as a tack. Because of what we do, we watch only the news
channels. A typical talking head shot is about 45% static to 55%
dynamic. I used to think they camera operators weren't too swuft until
I figured out it must be the compression that makes it look that way.

> But when it comes to over the air TV, the digital system is far
> better than the analog system, in my opinion. Even with the same
> old-style analog TV input, the digital system gives you crystal
> clear pictures with no ghosts or snow, and the option of 5.1 surround
> sound is great. Head to head, the Digital TV system is far better
> than the Analog TV system. The only drawback seems to be that
> the digital stuff needs far more power, and has far less range.

I wonder if that's because the digital channels are mostly up in the UHF
band? And I agree with you, when the digital works, it works great.

[Truth]

> that signals do not stop at boundaries? So why would you assume that
> someone who listens to XM and Sirius is in the US?

Because they only allow those in the US to subscribe to them, that's why.
Yes, some have snuck around this by having a mail drop in the US for billing,
use a friend in the US to subscribe for them, but it is not so bizarre for
people to assume everyone here talking about XM or Sirius are going to be in the
US.

> In this case, I am in Canada. While you
> in the states are more accustomed to miles, km is still the generally
> accepted abbreviation for kilometers.

How did you get your subscriptions to XM and Sirius?

> > But the CW lovers will use that to try and come up with a case in which
> > Morse
> > Code will actually be useful.
>
> I find CW fun myself and that's why I use it.

Most CW hams find the fun in forcing other hams to have to use it to, even if
they don't want to. There are many modes and hobbies using ham, and you
don't see those particular uses of ham radio forced on the others in the hobby
either. Being in Canada, you should have a better understanding of this
since the Canadian government years ago agreed that the original reason for
Morse Code being a requirement no longer exists, thus keeping it a requirement
is ridiculous. Now that the whole world finally agreed it is stupid to keep
as a requirement, looks like the US is going to be the last to drop the
requirement. Now they say it won't even be until 2006 before they even THINK
about it.

> > Never mind that no Police, Fire or Paramedics need to know Morse Code to
> > use
> > their radio communications equipment.
>
> Why should they have to?

Exactly. That's the point.

> >> CW does get through white noise better than voice.
> >
> > No it doesn't, because at the other end, the person will most likely not
> > know
> > CW, only voice, so in order for the message to get through, the people
> > listening
> > have to UNDERSTAND it.
>
> That's not a reason.

That's a most IMPORTANT reason. If I call for help, I am going to do so in
VOICE so that out of anyone listening, my message is more likely to get
through. YOU can pound out beep beep beep and see if anyone listening even
knows it is distress or happy morse code.

> I could say CW gets through better than voice in all
> circumstances because not all the world speaks English

I don't care what the language is, you can understand panic in one's voice and
that they are in distress. Not true for morse code, just beep beep beep.

And I am not going to be calling for help from anyone via shortwave in another
country, I want someone close by that speaks ENGLISH to help me.

> , and you could have a
> whole conversation with internationally accepted Q signals and abbreviations
> in CW.

Great, let's see you use Morse Code and Q signals to ask a German where he hurts
and how much blood he has lost? Stupid Morse Code "codes" are only good for
reception reports and weather, not for real conversation. The idea that one
can use Morse Code to talk to anyone in any language is the most ridiculous
false argument the CW lovers have ever made.

All airplane pilots and air traffic controllers in all countries must know
ENGLISH. ENGLISH is the standard language of the world. Eventually
everyone will speak one language, and it will be English.

> Given that both parties know CW and both parties speak the same
> language, if propagation conditions deteriorated to the point where the
> voice was barely audible anymore and could not be understood, CW would get
> through the white noise better.

That is a lot of assumptions and conditions to go in your favor in order for CW
to be of use! And then, you could use a telephone too!

Under MOST situations and conditions, VOICE is going to be easier, faster, more
understandable, and more fun than using CW.

How many times do you call your friends on the phone and use only the touch tone
pad to communicate back and forth? Try it sometime and see how fast that
gets annoying and you revert back to TALKING to each other again.

The only reason Morse Code even existed, was because there were no microphones
invented yet.

You can use a washboard and say it is fun while the rest of us put our clothes
in a washing machine.

I can talk to someone by voice and get a message through a lot faster than
anyone can by spelling out each word letter by letter with beeps to pound out
each letter one at a time.

You also can convey with voice, emotion and accent certain words, which you can
not do with Morse Code.

The thing CW lovers don't realize, is forcing other hams to learn it, does not
make it a very nice pleasant thing. If anything, if CW lovers want Morse Code
to be popular and used more, they need to not force it on others, as PROHIBITING
it from being used would even get more people in to it than just doing nothing.

> If you are having a wireless conversation
> on ham radio on HF, 90% of the time the person is going to know CW

That's because you need to know it in order to be on HF, so it should be more
like 100%, but I guess so many only learn it to pass the test, so 10% just
forget how to use it after the exam.

On the REAL bands, like VHF and UHF, MOST hams don't know CW. In fact, MOST
hams are "no code" techs now, with that class growing, and the others getting
smaller. Even those that had to learn it, forgot how to use it.

> > Why do you think commercials are in voice, and not CW? Because they want
> > to
> > reach as many listeners as possible with their message.
>
> Of course, and it's faster, too

Good. Let's leave the argument to rest then. If CW was so much better, then
everyone would be walking around talking in beeps instead of words.

What ever language and mode COMMERCIALS are in, and the mode of communication
the government uses to communicate to the masses with their propaganda, is the
BEST mode and band of communication.

> > The best thing about Satellite, is even when the DJ talks, or a caller is
> > put
> > on, they can say whatever they want and feel, talk just the way they do in
> > real
> > life, and nothing is cut out or bleeped. HOW REFRESHING!
> >
> > Either people are going to start waking up and allow normal conversation
> > on
> > regular radio and television too, or it is surely going to die.
>
> Finally something we agree on!

I am sure there will be a lot more as time goes on. Besides, most of the
disagreement is on "opinion based" or "personal taste" issues anyway, like who
plays better songs.

I have some interesting articles on satellite radio I am going to try to find an
online source for, else I will type then in from my magazine, some here might
find them interesting.

I don't know if you just cursed XM recently or what, but yesterday, I couldn't
find much on the "rock" channels that I liked either. It could depend on
what time of day we are listening, because I have noticed better music at night
than during the day. They take requests and have DJs, so perhaps that is
what the arguments are about here, we are all listening at different times of
day.

[Truth]

> Why do people compare digital technology to analog technology?

Because we still have the choice between the two. When making
choices, one tries to find the best choice, and makes comparisons of the
choices before them.

With cell phones. Analog cell phones are far superior to digital.
With Cable TV, Analog cable is far superior to digital cable.
With Video, Analog (like laser disc) is far superior to digital (like
MPEG2 DVD)

With Audio, I prefer digital (CD) over tape (analog) in many cases.


> Try making a comparison aka Dish Network and DirecTV.

Both are crap quality digital, what comparison is there to make? I
would never get either. I stick with the analog cable for as long as
the FCC says they have to keep it for cable ready tvs and vcrs. The
other thing I don't like is having to have a decoder box for every set
and vcr in the house. I like to use the cable ready tuners in tvs and
vcrs.

How the hell anyone records more than one program on a VCR with
satellite dish tv has always been a mystery to me.

[lab~rat]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:10:17 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:

>Both are crap quality digital, what comparison is there to make? I
>would never get either. I stick with the analog cable for as long as
>the FCC says they have to keep it for cable ready tvs and vcrs.

I have both and digital satellite is much better.

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

[Truth]

> On the other hand XM and Sirius can each "fill up" and have no room for a
> new channel without taking another one away. That's crucially important because
> it means that XM can't just offer everything Sirius offers and then some, the
> way VHS outpaced and obsoleted Beta.
>
> There will always be room for both services, no matter who comes to own
> them.

That is all we need, another PC versus MAC problem. Files needing to be converted so
other people can try and use them and all the other difficulties.

Why not make another type of car with a wider body so that it doesn't fit in standard
lanes of traffic and then we can make separate roads for those other cars?

COMPATIBILITY is a GOOD thing. Something we need MORE of. You can use one
companies cell phone to call and talk to someone with another brand and service cell
phone.

You can't tell your friend with a Sirius radio, to tune in and listen to the
interesting program on the XM radio.

Or use an XM radio to listen to a show on Sirius.

Yet any FM station of format can be heard by anyone, because we all have standard
receivers.

The reason BOTH VHS and BETA could not survive, is because the tapes could NEVER be
make compatible. With PC and MAC, there is a struggle to convert and make programs
that can use similar files to trade between the two, but how much nicer if everyone
would just stick with PC now that it is the one most commonly used and give up with the
MACs.

XM and Sirrius can not both survive. UNLESS.... there is some FCC mandate that all
satellite radios MUST be able to receive both services, just like when they mandated
that with television receivers to have both VHF and UHF.

So long this bullshit with two separate receivers for each is needed, only ONE will be
around much longer after the consumer decides which one it is going to be, and so far
it is XM.

Sirrius trying to come back and hold out the fight by getting Stern to try and sell
radios before Christmas is really just hurting everyone in the end and prolonging the
race that needs to end already.

AM stereo died because the FCC allowed choice in what method each station could
broadcast the stereo with, and consumers had to choose between two receivers. No
manufacturer knew which one to use in their AM radios. What a mess.

Look, if Sirius was ahead now, then that is what I would have went with and would have
wanted XM to go away.

They should have had ONE system up in space, and let each company run half of the
channels. That would have been the smartest thing. Or have 4 companies each
with a quarter of the channels.

We had one FM band where each channel was owned and operated by a separate company at
one time. Now Clear Channel owns and controls almost all of them.

Having one company control all the channels on XM or Sirrius is not a good idea.

Lets get ONE SYSTEM, and divide the channels on that system to more than one company.

[Truth]

> > Why do people compare digital technology to analog technology?
>
> It is a natural thing to compare. Perfect analog technology
> is always going to be better than digital technology since the
> digital version is only an approximation of the analog original.

Thank you.

> In addition, our sense appear to be closer to analog systems
> than digital systems, so our human interfaces are basically
> analog system.

Right. Everything digital has to come from analog, and be turned back
into analog so that your ears and eyes can understand them.

> We live in interesting times. Right now, we are making the
> switch to digital TV since the digital version is better than
> the analog version.

No, it really is not. As far as the video quality it is not. With
audio, it is better, but not with video. The only "better" part is
the storage mediums and convenience factors.

But in the end, it is the video you have to watch. And I would rather
watch a good quality analog video picture, than one that is worse
quality with "double the lines of resolution".

Just adding more lines to a hacked up dirty version of the analog is not
"better".

> But music went digital 20 years ago, and
> now the analog stuff has caught up and is equal to or better
> than digital, and many hi-fi buffs are going back to analog.

Analog has gotten worse. But we can still use the good stuff from 20
years ago, and many of us do.

I have wire recorders from the 40s that sound better than a lot of tape
recorders made today.

And no "tape hiss" either. When I put some old recordings from the
40s from wire to CD and let people hear them, they never believe they
are recordings from the 40s, because reel tapes they made themselves on
consumer recorders in the 60s don't sound as good.

[Truth]

First you said....

> > > Right now, we are making the
> > > switch to digital TV since the digital version is better than
> > > the analog version.

Then you correctly said....

> I agree. When they say "digital cable", they don't mean that they
> are carrying a better quality picture due to being digital, they
> mean that they squised everything down so a large number of channels
> can fit in the space where only a few analog channels previously
> fit. You can get some prety horriable results doing that.

Yes, and horrible results is not "better".

> Dish and Direct TV seem to do a better job at managing the trade-off
> between space and quality than the cable TV systems that I have seen.

There is no difference in quality other than satellite can be worse with
weather, but on clear days, digital television is digital television and both
are equally horrible.

> But when it comes to over the air TV, the digital system is far
> better than the analog system, in my opinion.

Opinions aside, the facts are that it is not. The human eye is more
sensitive to video than it is to audio, and the horrible pixelation and
swirling mess of moving video in digital is so bad they don't make a word for
it.

> Even with the same
> old-style analog TV input, the digital system gives you crystal
> clear pictures with no ghosts or snow

I never got ghosts or snow with analog television unless I was trying to watch
something from the next market or DX television signals.

Once cable came around, this was never an issue anymore anyway.

At least with a weak signal you can WATCH analog television. With a weak
digital signal, you can't watch anything.

> , and the option of 5.1 surround
> sound is great.

I would rather have a good analog picture, than have a bad pixelated picture
with extra audio channels I am never going to hear or use anyway.

> Head to head, the Digital TV system is far better
> than the Analog TV system.

Oh oh, here you go again....

> The only drawback seems to be that
> the digital stuff needs far more power, and has far less range.

So that is NOT "far better" then.

[Truth]

> We have Dish in my shop and when I'm in my edit bay I can switch to it
> on my master monitor. The compression is such that the parts of the
> picture that move always seem out of focus while the static elements are
> sharp as a tack. Because of what we do, we watch only the news
> channels. A typical talking head shot is about 45% static to 55%
> dynamic. I used to think they camera operators weren't too swuft until
> I figured out it must be the compression that makes it look that way.

Yes, even on DVD, any motion over a static background will make you want to
throw up. And since no camera is ever perfectly still, just a small
movement makes the background go crazy with swirls and pixelation garbage
with DVD or any digital video with compression like MPEG2.

The audio sync problems are horrible too, and something I am STILL never
going to get used to. We never had any sync problems with analog tape.

> I wonder if that's because the digital channels are mostly up in the UHF
> band? And I agree with you, when the digital works, it works great.

I disagree. Even when it works, it is horrible. But unless you actually
worked in video production, most consumers don't seem to notice the problems
until you point it out to them. Then, they too can't stand to watch it
anymore!

[Boston Blackie]

In article <4199154D.CD93AFCE@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> And since no camera is ever perfectly still, just a small
> movement makes the background go crazy with swirls and pixelation garbage
> with DVD or any digital video with compression like MPEG2.

I believe it is possible to secure a camera so that it's perfectly
still. However, if it's a film camera, the film will slop around in the
gate both in the taking and in the transfer to video.

An HD camera should not exhibit this problem.

[lab~rat]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:01:18 -0600, Boston Blackie
<bbblackie@mail.com> puked:

>In article <4199154D.CD93AFCE@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>
>> And since no camera is ever perfectly still, just a small
>> movement makes the background go crazy with swirls and pixelation garbage
>> with DVD or any digital video with compression like MPEG2.
>
>I believe it is possible to secure a camera so that it's perfectly
>still. However, if it's a film camera, the film will slop around in the
>gate both in the taking and in the transfer to video.
>
>An HD camera should not exhibit this problem.

You have never done any astrophotography, have you?

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

[Truth]

> > And since no camera is ever perfectly still, just a small
> > movement makes the background go crazy with swirls and pixelation garbage
> > with DVD or any digital video with compression like MPEG2.
>
> I believe it is possible to secure a camera so that it's perfectly
> still.

Sure, but film makers are not always doing that, plus in the film to digital
transfer, you get movement there.

BUT....

Even with a locked down camera on a static shot of a vase with no movement, the
MPEG2 (DVD) image has the surreal appearance of freezing live video as one does
with a time base corrector "freeze" button or digital effects switcher.
Because that is exactly what it is doing, it just uses the one frame of video,
and it always looks fake to the human eye.

> However, if it's a film camera, the film will slop around in the
> gate both in the taking and in the transfer to video.

And even when that is not the reason, who wants to worry about having to lock
down every camera and make sure every background shot does not move, just
because of DVD?

> An HD camera should not exhibit this problem.

Ah you miss the point. MOST movies were made before all of this digital
crap.

I prefer watching VHS and Beta tapes from the 80s. Even VHS today, is made
from the same digital masters and has the same crap look that DVDs do.

Yes, DVDs are great for storage size, no rewinding, instant location and
indexing, great sound, extras, commentary tracks, etc. But the video
sucks. And really, that should have been more important than the rest.

[Truth]

> >Both are crap quality digital, what comparison is there to make? I
> >would never get either. I stick with the analog cable for as long as
> >the FCC says they have to keep it for cable ready tvs and vcrs.
>
> I have both and digital satellite is much better.

You just think it is. Like I have actually heard people say they think
Equal tastes better than NutraSweet, when both are the exact same thing by
the exact same company with the exact same ingredients.

You THINK Satellite is better, but the digital video technology is the same.

And why the hell would anyone have BOTH? If you were serious, then you
would have gotten rid of the cable.

I know 3 people who made the switch from cable to satellite, and then
switched back to cable.

I never had to do that, since I already knew cable was better.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <p57ip053tfg13ht2k0ntvj0viduud7pueo@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:

> You have never done any astrophotography, have you?

True enough, but I understand the reference. The original discussion,
however, regarded cinematography where the subject to focal plane
distance is usually a little shorter :{)

[Boston Blackie]

In article <41991E28.119EB09D@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> MOST movies were made before all of this digital
> crap.

I dare you to say that again in 100 years :{)

> Yes, DVDs are great for storage size, no rewinding, instant location and
> indexing, great sound, extras, commentary tracks, etc. But the video
> sucks. And really, that should have been more important than the rest.

Gee, all this time I thought that story, acting, that kind of stuff were
more important than the rest.

Shows to go how much I don't know.

[Truth]

> > MOST movies were made before all of this digital
> > crap.
>
> I dare you to say that again in 100 years :{)

I dare you to be around then to hear anyone say it.

In 100 years, no one is going to be watching any movies at all.

> > Yes, DVDs are great for storage size, no rewinding, instant location and
> > indexing, great sound, extras, commentary tracks, etc. But the video
> > sucks. And really, that should have been more important than the rest.
>
> Gee, all this time I thought that story, acting, that kind of stuff were
> more important than the rest.

They are, but that was not in the equation until you just brought it up.
Good story and acting with a bad picture is much better than superior picture
with a bad story and actors.

But what the hell does good story and actors have to do with comparing analog
and digital video formats? The story and acting don't change from one
format to the other and get better or worse.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <41992592.8216A7F9@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> In 100 years, no one is going to be watching any movies at all.

What is your prediction for the future? Will the world end by
then? Will people live in little tribes and have no hollywood?
Or will this kind of entertainment have faded into the past?
Will everything be 3-d holographic and interactive?

Movies have been around for 100 years, I think they will be here
for another 100 years.

-john-

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

[Boston Blackie]

In article <41992592.8216A7F9@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> The story and acting don't change from one
> format to the other and get better or worse.

Ah, the old "... food isn't affected by the truck that carries it"
argument. Haven't heard that one since grad school.

[Truth]

> > In 100 years, no one is going to be watching any movies at all.
>
> What is your prediction for the future? Will the world end by
> then?

No, unfortunately.

> Will people live in little tribes and have no hollywood?

There you go. See, even you could figure that one out without me having
to give any clues. Now think WHY that is, and how that was so quick to
pop into your head.

> Or will this kind of entertainment have faded into the past?
> Will everything be 3-d holographic and interactive?

No. Humans work hard to go against nature and common sense. The fact
that quality of radio is getting worse instead of better, is only one part
of human society. Allowing the weak and sick to reproduce instead of be
killed off, only insures the species to eventually become extinct, even if
technology were to go in a better direction, which it is not.

As it is now, every other species can drink from ponds, humans get sick and
die if their water isn't purified and sterile for them. Just going
outside and breathing air causes them allergies and illnesses.

Now, if technology crashes and is no longer around (which is going to
happen) most people will not know what to do but steal and murder.
(think of what happens during a black out)

Humans are doomed.

> Movies have been around for 100 years, I think they will be here
> for another 100 years.

Said the 100 year old man to himself about his future.

[Truth]

> > The story and acting don't change from one
> > format to the other and get better or worse.
>
> Ah, the old "... food isn't affected by the truck that carries it"
> argument.

Ok, then explain to me how the acting or story in a movie changes from VHS
to DVD.

And when they give out Oscars, do the judges watch the actors and movies on
VHS, DVD, or what? because obviously to you that is going to have a big
effect on who wins.

[Mark S.]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41990BE7.DE813AD1@sucks.com...
>> that signals do not stop at boundaries? So why would you assume that
>> someone who listens to XM and Sirius is in the US?
>
> Because they only allow those in the US to subscribe to them, that's why.
> Yes, some have snuck around this by having a mail drop in the US for
> billing,
> use a friend in the US to subscribe for them, but it is not so bizarre for
> people to assume everyone here talking about XM or Sirius are going to be
> in the
> US.

Well, yeah you have to have a US address to give them. No one ever said it
had to be yours, or even real for that matter. I know many who are
subscribing to XM using Sirius' headquarters address for their mailing
address, and vice versa. If anyone ever did an audit of subscribers
addresses I could only imagine the kind of stuff they'd come up with. I
think in the CRTC filings, XM estimated that there's around 30,000 grey
market Canadian subscribers. I don't know how they came up with this
number, and I think this was last year sometime when they made this
calculation, but there's definitely a significant amount of so called grey
market subscribers of both services out there, not just in Canada but
elsewhere in North America and Central America. You don't even have to go
as far as having a mail drop like you do for DirecTV or Dish network. The
mailings are very minimal and if they bounce they don't cancel your service.
As long as they have their money that's all they care. You can use Canadian
credit cards, it doesn't matter.

>> In this case, I am in Canada. While you
>> in the states are more accustomed to miles, km is still the generally
>> accepted abbreviation for kilometers.
>
> How did you get your subscriptions to XM and Sirius?

Using my credit card and a relatives address. Bought my equipment while on
a trip in the states.

>> > But the CW lovers will use that to try and come up with a case in which
>> > Morse
>> > Code will actually be useful.
>>
>> I find CW fun myself and that's why I use it.
>
> Most CW hams find the fun in forcing other hams to have to use it to, even
> if
> they don't want to. There are many modes and hobbies using ham, and
> you
> don't see those particular uses of ham radio forced on the others in the
> hobby
> either.

I think what they're trying to do is have a barrier to keep the morons that
you hear on CB from infiltrating the ham bands now that all the questions
have gone to multiple choice and you can miss a good deal of them and still
pass. In reality, there's a good number of morons who learned the CW as is
evident to anyone listening to the 75 meter band or 20 meters at times. One
listens to new hams on 2 meters who are no-coders fresh from CB and they
bring their bad habits with them so the old hams get pissed off and stay on
HF where their CW requirement barrier can keep the morons away, or so they
think.

> Being in Canada, you should have a better understanding of this
> since the Canadian government years ago agreed that the original reason
> for
> Morse Code being a requirement no longer exists, thus keeping it a
> requirement
> is ridiculous.

The code requirement here isn't all that much different from what it is
there. You still need code to operate on HF. We have effectively 4 licence
classes. There's the Basic licence, Advanced licence, and each of those can
be supplemented with 5 WPM code. The code lets you operate on HF, the Basic
lets you operate on everything else. The advanced licence lets you operate
more power, build your own equipment and run your own repeater. There is no
difference in which frequencies you can operate on, which is very different
from the licencing structure in the sates.

> Now that the whole world finally agreed it is stupid to keep
> as a requirement, looks like the US is going to be the last to drop the
> requirement. Now they say it won't even be until 2006 before they even
> THINK
> about it.

If I recall correctly, there's about 3 countries (one of which is New
Zealand) who allow their licencees to operate on HF without some sort of
code proficiency test.

>> > Never mind that no Police, Fire or Paramedics need to know Morse Code
>> > to
>> > use
>> > their radio communications equipment.
>>
>> Why should they have to?
>
> Exactly. That's the point.
>
>> >> CW does get through white noise better than voice.
>> >
>> > No it doesn't, because at the other end, the person will most likely
>> > not
>> > know
>> > CW, only voice, so in order for the message to get through, the people
>> > listening
>> > have to UNDERSTAND it.
>>
>> That's not a reason.
>
> That's a most IMPORTANT reason. If I call for help, I am going to do so
> in
> VOICE so that out of anyone listening, my message is more likely to get
> through. YOU can pound out beep beep beep and see if anyone listening
> even
> knows it is distress or happy morse code.

Your point is moot. I'm not arguing the usefulness of morse code or whether
or not it should be kept as a requirement or not. My point was simple. CW
is more audible through white noise than voice is. Period. Nothing more,
nothing less. I don't care about people sending morse code using touch tone
pads on payphones at the north pole. I'm not saying that I'd be more apt to
make a distress call using CW or voice. I'm not arguing about how many
people know morse code. Those points are moot. The fact of the matter is,
is that CW is more readable through poor conditions/static than voice is.
Whether you know it or not is not the issue at hand.

>> I could say CW gets through better than voice in all
>> circumstances because not all the world speaks English
>
> I don't care what the language is, you can understand panic in one's voice
> and
> that they are in distress. Not true for morse code, just beep beep
> beep.

You're missing my point completely. Read my reply above. Besides, just
because I could tell the distress in someone's voice wouldn't mean I'd know
what the heck they were distressed about if it was in a language in which I
do not understand. For all I know, they could be excited that one of their
kids got married, to the point where they were excited and crying. I
overheard a rather dirty conversation between a guy and his girlfriend, and
if I didn't know any better, I would have thought she was being assulted. I
think everyone, regardless of their knowledge of code as a whole, knows what
SOS is in morse code. It is the most easily recognised distress signal in
the world, to the point where people even say SOS in voice, although the
correct distress call would be mayday.

> And I am not going to be calling for help from anyone via shortwave in
> another
> country, I want someone close by that speaks ENGLISH to help me.

Shortwave wouldn't be the best place to get a hold of someone close by due
to skip zones. You might get someone via groundwave, but you'd be more
likely to get someone much further away. You'd need to get on a band below
(in frequency, not wavelength) 20 meters. Medium wave (160m, 75m) or
VHF/UHF would probably be your best bet.

>> and you could have a
>> whole conversation with internationally accepted Q signals and
>> abbreviations
>> in CW.
>
> Great, let's see you use Morse Code and Q signals to ask a German where he
> hurts
> and how much blood he has lost? Stupid Morse Code "codes" are only
> good for
> reception reports and weather, not for real conversation. The idea
> that one
> can use Morse Code to talk to anyone in any language is the most
> ridiculous
> false argument the CW lovers have ever made.

You're only talking about an emergency situation. I could probably convey
more information with Q signals than someone who only spoke German talking
to someone by voice who could only speak English. Beside telling by his
voice that he's distressed, what other information are you going to be able
to convey? Do you know how to ask someone how much blood they've lost in
every langauge?

> All airplane pilots and air traffic controllers in all countries must know
> ENGLISH. ENGLISH is the standard language of the world. Eventually
> everyone will speak one language, and it will be English.

I thought everyone was supposed to speak Esperanto! :)

>> Given that both parties know CW and both parties speak the same
>> language, if propagation conditions deteriorated to the point where the
>> voice was barely audible anymore and could not be understood, CW would
>> get
>> through the white noise better.
>
> That is a lot of assumptions and conditions to go in your favor in order
> for CW
> to be of use! And then, you could use a telephone too!

It'd be tough to get someone's telephone number if conditions were so poor
you couldn't understand their voice! There doesn't have to be any
assumptions for my point to be true. Remember, I'm not arguing CW's
usefulness, although you're doing a pretty good job dragging me into that.
My point in case you forgot again is that CW is more audible through white
noise than voice, plain and simple. I don't care if you can understand it
or not, it's a moot point because you're gone into CW's usefulness and that
is a whole other can of worms.

> Under MOST situations and conditions, VOICE is going to be easier, faster,
> more
> understandable, and more fun than using CW.

Never argued against that, well except for the fun part. That's subjective.
Like a person can type and talk to someone else at the same time, CW is the
same way. I can be talking to someone on the radio in CW and having a
conversation with my girlfriend at the same time, unless I am in CQ contest
mode! No disturbing me during contests ( I think I'm making some enemies
with this statement! ) Again, my only point was that under poor reception
conditions, CW will make it through better than voice will.

> How many times do you call your friends on the phone and use only the
> touch tone
> pad to communicate back and forth? Try it sometime and see how fast
> that
> gets annoying and you revert back to TALKING to each other again.

Hahaha, well not too many times on the phone, but I've been on 2m simplex
and used the touch tone pad to send morse code to people. It was fun, and
funny. Probably a bit annoying to some, but legal anyways.

> The only reason Morse Code even existed, was because there were no
> microphones
> invented yet.
>
> You can use a washboard and say it is fun while the rest of us put our
> clothes
> in a washing machine.

Sometimes walking or riding a bike is more fun than driving to the same
place. Sometimes building your own antennas is more fun then buying them.

> I can talk to someone by voice and get a message through a lot faster than
> anyone can by spelling out each word letter by letter with beeps to pound
> out
> each letter one at a time.

Yeah, I can talk much faster than I can send code, too, but if I can't hear
someone's voice due to bad conditions, I can still use code if I want. It's
often that the CW bands will be full of activity but the voice bands are
half vacant because the static crashes are too much to deal with.

> You also can convey with voice, emotion and accent certain words, which
> you can
> not do with Morse Code.

Yes, so like the internet we must use other means to convey emotion, like
"hi hi" and you could make smileys and the sort if you wished. There was
once this picture of Cindy Crawford that was made out of letters so that if
you printed it out you'd have a pinup of her for your wall. I think that
was on RTTY though, but there's no reason why you couldn't have done it with
CW, typed it up on your computer and print it out, it just would have taken
awhile ;-)

> The thing CW lovers don't realize, is forcing other hams to learn it, does
> not
> make it a very nice pleasant thing. If anything, if CW lovers want
> Morse Code
> to be popular and used more, they need to not force it on others, as
> PROHIBITING
> it from being used would even get more people in to it than just doing
> nothing.

Again, I don't think this is their goal. They want the HF bands to be
reserved for the elite because they had to work much harder for their
licences than people do today. They had to draw diagrams, answer short
answer and fill in the blank questions on their exams. They had to pass
20WPM code exams. Both of these things don't exist today. In fact, you
could copy 15% of CW sent at a test and as long as you got most of the
multiple choice questions based on what was sent right, you pass. It's
still 2 mistakes or less here to pass the code exam. I think that people
won't want to learn CW once it's not a requirement. This isn't necessarily
a bad thing, just a sad thing. I'll be a relic in 50 years, one of the last
people on Earth to know code. It will just be a conversation piece.

>> If you are having a wireless conversation
>> on ham radio on HF, 90% of the time the person is going to know CW
>
> That's because you need to know it in order to be on HF, so it should be
> more
> like 100%, but I guess so many only learn it to pass the test, so 10% just
> forget how to use it after the exam.

I say 90% because I know you're a nitpicker, and there's exceptions to the
rule. Not all countries anymore need code to get on HF, some people forget
the code, plus 10 meter repeaters can be linked to repeaters in the VHF and
UHF band and be legally used by no-coders.

> On the REAL bands, like VHF and UHF, MOST hams don't know CW. In fact,
> MOST
> hams are "no code" techs now, with that class growing, and the others
> getting
> smaller. Even those that had to learn it, forgot how to use it.

Yes, most are going for the no-code options, although I'm pleased a lot of
them are interested in HF and go learn the code to get on it, whether that's
a fair requirement or not. A lot of hams who aren't no code prefer to stay
off of VHF/UHF due to the politics/buerocracy with the repeater cliques and
the no-coders who prefer to stick to 10- signals and other CB bad
habits/language.

>> > Why do you think commercials are in voice, and not CW? Because they
>> > want
>> > to
>> > reach as many listeners as possible with their message.
>>
>> Of course, and it's faster, too
>
> Good. Let's leave the argument to rest then. If CW was so much
> better, then
> everyone would be walking around talking in beeps instead of words.

I never said it was better. It is better for hams in certain situations.
You should know what my point about CW was by now.

> What ever language and mode COMMERCIALS are in, and the mode of
> communication
> the government uses to communicate to the masses with their propaganda, is
> the
> BEST mode and band of communication.
>
>> > The best thing about Satellite, is even when the DJ talks, or a caller
>> > is
>> > put
>> > on, they can say whatever they want and feel, talk just the way they do
>> > in
>> > real
>> > life, and nothing is cut out or bleeped. HOW REFRESHING!
>> >
>> > Either people are going to start waking up and allow normal
>> > conversation
>> > on
>> > regular radio and television too, or it is surely going to die.
>>
>> Finally something we agree on!
>
> I am sure there will be a lot more as time goes on. Besides, most of
> the
> disagreement is on "opinion based" or "personal taste" issues anyway, like
> who
> plays better songs.
>
> I have some interesting articles on satellite radio I am going to try to
> find an
> online source for, else I will type then in from my magazine, some here
> might
> find them interesting.
>
> I don't know if you just cursed XM recently or what, but yesterday, I
> couldn't
> find much on the "rock" channels that I liked either. It could depend
> on
> what time of day we are listening, because I have noticed better music at
> night
> than during the day. They take requests and have DJs, so perhaps that
> is
> what the arguments are about here, we are all listening at different times
> of
> day.

[Bob Haberkost]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:419811AF.D9D3EB9@sucks.com...

>> > What area doesn't have any station within 250 thousand miles from it in
>> > the US that you are having a problem with?

>> Umm, km is the abbreviation for Kilometers.

> What country are you in? I figured you were in the US having XM and
> Sirrius.

> Here is the States, we use Miles. When we see K, it means 1000.

Well, you're half right. k is 1000, but expand your horizons.....look at that other
scale on your American-built (or, more likely, Canadian-built) car and you'll see
another scale that, index for index, runs about 62% of the miles scale. That's, as
noted, kilometres. And for you to assume otherwise points out just why Bush was
re-elected. Even if you don't use km every day, that conversion should be
instinctive.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Bob Haberkost]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:419910FF.1BFB6EFB@sucks.com...


> XM and Sirrius can not both survive. UNLESS.... there is some FCC mandate that
> all
> satellite radios MUST be able to receive both services, just like when they
> mandated
> that with television receivers to have both VHF and UHF.

This is exactly what the FCC has done. Read the several annual SEC statements by, at
least, Sirius. Although what the point of that still escapes me, since there is no
similar mandate for Echostar and DirecTV, nor for TDMA and CDMA phones, and the
choice of provider rather informs the choice of receiver. The only advantage I can
see is that a universal receiver makes it easy to be fickle, but then there's
contract term minimums which will probably make that prohibitive except on contract
anniversaries.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Truth]

> Well, yeah you have to have a US address to give them. No one ever said it
> had to be yours, or even real for that matter. I know many who are
> subscribing to XM using Sirius' headquarters address for their mailing
> address, and vice versa.

Then the credit card wouldn't get approved. I could never order items with my
charge card and have them sent to my work address, because the address would not
match the billing address and the charge would never go through.

And as soon as they send junk mail to themselves and receive it at their
headquarters with your name on it, they know what you did.

I don't see any of these tricks working, they seem more like Urban Legends.

> think in the CRTC filings, XM estimated that there's around 30,000 grey
> market Canadian subscribers. I don't know how they came up with this
> number

Of course not, because in order to know that number, they should also know which
of the 30,000 radios to turn off.

Wait... They DO know, and they don't CARE. They have to pretend to not
give service to anyone outside the US, because of stupid laws or agreements with
god knows what, but they want to take subscribers and money from anyone they
can.

Just like those that would buy cable descrambler boxes would just have to
pretend they were not going to use them illegally, and the company would just
ship them to anyone.

So long as you don't come out and say you are not living outside of the US, even
if they know you are, they are happy to have you on board anyway.

> mailings are very minimal and if they bounce they don't cancel your service.
> As long as they have their money that's all they care. You can use Canadian
> credit cards, it doesn't matter.

Yes, of course. What was I thinking. They would take a subscription from
Australia if someone wanted to pay them for one.

> > How did you get your subscriptions to XM and Sirius?
>
> Using my credit card and a relatives address. Bought my equipment while on
> a trip in the states.

This explains a lot about statements you made before, you were arguing about
reception and stations in Canada, while the rest of us were thinking US. Note
when you said something about programming songs that I had said is not anything
I have ever heard of being done in the US. I was right.

I find it interesting that the one that tried to get this group up and promoted
the most, is someone that isn't even "legally" part of satellite radio. How
ironic.

Not that I care, I think all these laws and agreements are ridiculous. Who
does it hurt for people in Canada to listen to XM or Sirrius? They can tune
in US AM and FM stations too.

> I think what they're trying to do is have a barrier to keep the morons that
> you hear on CB from infiltrating the ham bands now that all the questions

This argument also makes no sense. The rule about callsigns and having to
give them every 10 minutes is what keeps what is on the CB from coming on
Ham. On CB, you have anonymity, and no one can look up your call sign and get
your name and address from the internet like you can with anyone you hear on Ham
radio.

The other thing that PROVES that bullshit theory false, is that you don't need
to know CW to get a tech class ham license, so why isn't 2 meters and 440
sounding like CB??

See how it has absolutely NOTHING to do with CW keeping ham bands from turning
into CB??

The CALLSIGN requirement does that. People are not free to say whatever they
want if they know everyone listening can identify their name and address from
their callsign.

> have gone to multiple choice and you can miss a good deal of them and still
> pass.

They stopped doing that. Else, all you would have to learn is the letter A
and E, and then pick the multiple choice sentence that had as many As and Es as
you heard from the morse code played to you.

> One listens to new hams on 2 meters who are no-coders fresh from CB and they
> bring their bad habits with them

I already showed how this is not true and why. Plus, I still find it much
more fun, free and open to be on CB than on 2 meters! On trips, I find much
more people to talk to on the road with CB than with 2 meters too.

The reason discussion on this newsgroup can be a lot more fun and interesting
than talking to someone at your workplace, is that you can be open and honest
here, not be afraid of political correctness, language, or losing your job for
stating an opinion of how you REALLY feel about something.

At least hear, I know no one is holding back and are letting their real feelings
out. Other places, they all say what they are supposed to say and pretend to
believe and I can't stand it.

You can't find one person that hates "such and such" at the work place, in
public, at stores, wherever, but on a newsgroup or CB, you find out what people
REALLY think and believe inside when they don't have to be afraid to be open and
honest.

> so the old hams get pissed off and stay on
> HF where their CW requirement barrier can keep the morons away, or so they
> think.

When you read all the reports of violations and fines, it is always the people
on the HF bands, rarely anyone using 2 meters, so just the opposite happens.
CB people who become hams know how to put up antennas, fix radios, do fox hunts,
but those without the CB experience that jump into ham radio never even know how
to program or use their HTs and have to have one of the "no code techs" to do it
for them.

> > Being in Canada, you should have a better understanding of this
> > since the Canadian government years ago agreed that the original reason
> > for
> > Morse Code being a requirement no longer exists, thus keeping it a
> > requirement
> > is ridiculous.
>
> The code requirement here isn't all that much different from what it is
> there.

What the Canadian equivalent to the FCC said about not needing the requirement,
is what I am talking about. It made perfect sense. The FCC still has not
made any statement at all, they want to wait until 2006 before even thinking
about it.

> You still need code to operate on HF.

I always find it ridiculous that in the US, one needs a license and to know CW
before being allowed to use 10 meters, but no license or anything is needed to
use 11 meters.

That pretty much sums up the intelligence of human society.

> more power, build your own equipment and run your own repeater. There is no
> difference in which frequencies you can operate on, which is very different
> from the licencing structure in the sates.

The fact that one class of license from another can use the same exact bands as
another, but only can use a few "premium" channels if they are of one class,
shows how it is all about being snobs and having "exclusive" clubs and sub
groups within the same hobby.

It is one thing to say you need to know more technically before you can operate
from 2 meters to HF, but if one can be license to work a band on HF, just not a
particular channel reserved for a "higher class" ham, that is complete bullshit.

On CB, everyone can use any of the channels, and they don't go into groups
saying their group is better than the other class or group on CB.

Hams should WANT more of the CB ethics to come to ham radio. But please,
don't let any of those snobs come over and turn CB into what they are!

> > Now that the whole world finally agreed it is stupid to keep
> > as a requirement, looks like the US is going to be the last to drop the
> > requirement. Now they say it won't even be until 2006 before they even
> > THINK
> > about it.
>
> If I recall correctly, there's about 3 countries (one of which is New
> Zealand) who allow their licencees to operate on HF without some sort of
> code proficiency test.

A hell of a lot more countries than that got rid of the code requirement the
week the world agreed it was no longer necessary!

The US is probably one of only 3 countries that still held on to the
requirement! Even before the worldwide agreement to drop it, many countries
like Japan already did away with the code requirement, so long as you operated
at low power on HF.

> Your point is moot. I'm not arguing the usefulness of morse code or whether
> or not it should be kept as a requirement or not.

> My point was simple. CW
> is more audible through white noise than voice is.

Talk about a point being moot! Who cares about that? When dealing with the
REAL WORLD, all the talk and numbers and theories about an Isotropic antenna
are moot.


> You're missing my point completely. Read my reply above. Besides, just
> because I could tell the distress in someone's voice wouldn't mean I'd know
> what the heck they were distressed about if it was in a language in which I
> do not understand.

But you DO know there is distress! With beep beep beep, you don't know happy
from danger and HELP!

So voice is much more likely to get you help in an emergency that beep beep beep
is. No matter WHAT the language.

I don't understand what language Bin Laden speaks, but I knew that the English
translation the US government and press gave were not the correct
translation! How? Because the words "Bush" and "Kerry" are the same in ANY
language. Bin Laden said Bush, but he NEVER said Kerry! And how COULD
he? That tape was made shortly after 9/11 and no one even knew Kerry was
going to be running against Bush yet!

Now if Bin Laden gave the message in Morse Code, I would never have known the
translation the US gave was a lie.

> SOS is in morse code. It is the most easily recognised distress signal in
> the world, to the point where people even say SOS in voice, although the

Big deal, You hear SOS in code, where do you send help to? But if you say
HELP MAYDAY and give a city name or street name, it will be understood in any
language by anyone listening.


> >> and you could have a
> >> whole conversation with internationally accepted Q signals and
> >> abbreviations
> >> in CW.
> >
> > Great, let's see you use Morse Code and Q signals to ask a German where he
> > hurts
> > and how much blood he has lost? Stupid Morse Code "codes" are only
> > good for
> > reception reports and weather, not for real conversation. The idea
> > that one
> > can use Morse Code to talk to anyone in any language is the most
> > ridiculous
> > false argument the CW lovers have ever made.
>
> You're only talking about an emergency situation. I could probably convey
> more information with Q signals than someone who only spoke German talking
> to someone by voice who could only speak English.

No you can't. Only for weather, signal strength. Not normal conversation
and questions!

THINK about it! How the hell would just knowing morse code and Q signals make
everyone able to talk to each other in different languages?

You would have to have so many Q codes that you might as well all just learn
English, and that is exactly what all pilots and air traffic controllers all
over the world in every country have to learn. Not CW or Q codes! ENGLISH
so they can all understand each other. Because just being able to ask signal
strength and "how is the weather over there" is worthless.

> It'd be tough to get someone's telephone number if conditions were so poor
> you couldn't understand their voice!

Then email it to them.

> > How many times do you call your friends on the phone and use only the
> > touch tone
> > pad to communicate back and forth? Try it sometime and see how fast
> > that
> > gets annoying and you revert back to TALKING to each other again.
>
> Hahaha, well not too many times on the phone, but I've been on 2m simplex
> and used the touch tone pad to send morse code to people. It was fun, and
> funny. Probably a bit annoying to some, but legal anyways.

Oh annoying things will always be legal. Things that are fun and bring joy to
people are the first things to be made illegal.

> > The only reason Morse Code even existed, was because there were no
> > microphones
> > invented yet.
> >
> > You can use a washboard and say it is fun while the rest of us put our
> > clothes
> > in a washing machine.
>
> Sometimes walking or riding a bike is more fun than driving to the same
> place.

Yes, but using a washboard, or trying to talk to someone with a touch tone pad
instead of a microphone is NOT more fun. That is the difference.

> Sometimes building your own antennas is more fun then buying them.

And they work much better too. Quality can not be mass produced.

> > I can talk to someone by voice and get a message through a lot faster than
> > anyone can by spelling out each word letter by letter with beeps to pound
> > out
> > each letter one at a time.
>
> Yeah, I can talk much faster than I can send code, too, but if I can't hear
> someone's voice due to bad conditions, I can still use code if I want.

I pick up the telephone or send email.

> Again, I don't think this is their goal. They want the HF bands to be
> reserved for the elite because they had to work much harder for their
> licences than people do today.

This is exactly the reason MOST are against dropping the requirement.

No one that had not taken a code test is ever FOR the requirement, but some
people that did take the code test are AGAINST the requirement. That
explains it all.

"Why did I have to learn the stupid code and now everyone else doesn't have to,
that's not FAIR! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

> still 2 mistakes or less here to pass the code exam. I think that people
> won't want to learn CW once it's not a requirement.

You are wrong. They don't want to learn it so far as it is a forced
requirement and will NEVER be seen as fun, only a chore.

As soon as it is dropped and no one HAS to use it, then people will want to
learn it for nostalgic reasons and it actually COULD be fun, because it is
voluntary.

I know many hams that say they will learn code the day the requirement is
dropped. That in itself explains a lot about this whole thing.

> This isn't necessarily
> a bad thing, just a sad thing. I'll be a relic in 50 years, one of the last
> people on Earth to know code. It will just be a conversation piece.

As soon as the requirement is dropped, you will see more people wanting to learn
it then now.

Because it will not be a hated chore, it will be nostalgic fun and a "hobby".

> Yes, most are going for the no-code options, although I'm pleased a lot of
> them are interested in HF and go learn the code to get on it

If that was true, there wouldn't have been a worldwide move to drop the
requirement.

As soon as the requirement was dropped for 6 meters and above, the world saw an
increase in people getting licenses like never before. And just as much
activity when it is removed from HF.

Hams pretend to be angry at losing spectrum and ham bands, yet they don't want
any hams using the bands so they won't get taken away! Let all the no coders
on the HF, and they will be used and not threatened of being taken away!

The government can never take away spectrum from CBers!

Hams could learn a lot from CBers. They are so strong, they even got rid of
the license requirement in the US! One time a license was required. But if
enough people tell the government that is not how it is going to be, then there
is nothing they can do about it.

> , whether that's
> a fair requirement or not. A lot of hams who aren't no code prefer to stay
> off of VHF/UHF due to the politics/buerocracy with the repeater cliques and
> the no-coders who prefer to stick to 10- signals and other CB bad
> habits/language.

The same language used in real life at home, at work, at the movies, on
satellite radio, in the school yards, everywhere except on AM, FM, TV and Ham
Radio. How ridiculous is that?

Kids have to be careful not to talk openly and use certain words around adults,
and the adults have to be careful around the kids, yet on their own, they each
use the words, so why the pretending?

At least on CB, people can talk normal, like they do on a telephone, where each
person says a sentence or two, and then lets the other person talk. On Ham
radio, one person has to talk straight for 10 minutes before the other is
allowed to comment. Absolutely ridiculous!

Where did they ever pick up such a stupid form of communicating from? Is that
still left over from CW when you would have mostly long one way communications
and they held on to that when microphones came around?

I can never talk to any hams except my normal friends on ham radio, because I
will say a few words, then have to wait 10 minutes to just get another few words
in, and then I just turn off the radio and turn on the CB where people talk
normally, like they do in real life.

[D Ray]

> > Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.

Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.

Sirius music channels are FM without commercials. XM's are something
totally different.

XM is producing a LOT of stuff in-house. Its recent "Artist
Confidential" series is a great example. Music you simply can't get
anywhere else. Live performances from great musicians like Yes and
Bonnie Raitt and Don Henley.

I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
is far superior.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <4199471E.58F62A3E@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > > The story and acting don't change from one
> > > format to the other and get better or worse.
> >
> > Ah, the old "... food isn't affected by the truck that carries it"
> > argument.
>
> Ok, then explain to me how the acting or story in a movie changes from VHS
> to DVD.

I believe my point is that they don't. If it's a good story, or if the
acting is outstanding, it doesn't matter if you watch the movie on DVD,
VHS, Betamax, LaserDisk, SelectaVision, Quad, Type C 1", alpha wrap,
omega wrap, satellite, over the air, fibre, composite, component or
(heaven forefend) on a big screen in a dark theatre.

Or radio, for that matter.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <eaf9681.0411151855.4912f292@posting.google.com>, D Ray
<david@timecalc.com> wrote:

> > > Sirius has music from artists I have heard of.
>
> Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
>
> Sirius music channels are FM without commercials. XM's are something
> totally different.
>
> XM is producing a LOT of stuff in-house. Its recent "Artist
> Confidential" series is a great example. Music you simply can't get
> anywhere else. Live performances from great musicians like Yes and
> Bonnie Raitt and Don Henley.
>
> I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> is far superior.

The stats are that XM has a 200,000 song library, while Sirius
has a 50,000 song library. The question is if this is good or
bad.

In my case, and in the case of many casual listeners, XM plays songs
that people haven't heard of, and it gets painful to listen to since
you don't know or like the music. Sirius' smaller library means that
you are likely to familiar with much more of their music.

If you are music hobbyist and like hearing weird stuff, then XM is
certainly for you. But for the casual listener that wants music that
they like, Sirius is the place to be.

I was a pretty serious music fan in the 70's and 80's. But when I
listen to 80's on 8 on XM, I never heard of 2/3 of what they play.
I cannot play this channel for my friends since they all ask what
that crap is--they never heard of it either. I think XM intentionally
plays the obscure stuff since the royalities are cheaper, so they don't
have to pay as much as they would if they played the good music like
Sirius does.

-john-

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

[Bob Haberkost]

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:151120042241532644%john@johnweeks.com...
> In article <eaf9681.0411151855.4912f292@posting.google.com>, D Ray
> <david@timecalc.com> wrote:
>
> I think XM intentionally
> plays the obscure stuff since the royalities are cheaper, so they don't
> have to pay as much as they would if they played the good music like
> Sirius does.

That's not how "royalties" work. It costs Sirius or XM the same to licence the play
of any given protected music, no matter whether they play a big-time artist or a
complete unknown. This is why artists (writers, actually) sign on with BMI, ASCAP,
etc. They're effectively unions. Performers get paid only when a recording is sold,
and XM or Sirius rarely has to buy a recording, I'd bet.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[lab~rat]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:25:46 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:

>> >Both are crap quality digital, what comparison is there to make? I
>> >would never get either. I stick with the analog cable for as long as
>> >the FCC says they have to keep it for cable ready tvs and vcrs.
>>
>> I have both and digital satellite is much better.
>
>You just think it is. Like I have actually heard people say they think
>Equal tastes better than NutraSweet, when both are the exact same thing by
>the exact same company with the exact same ingredients.
>
>You THINK Satellite is better, but the digital video technology is the same.

I can switch between my cable feed and satellite feed and the
difference is day and night. Any moron could tell, satellite is far
superior.
>
>And why the hell would anyone have BOTH? If you were serious, then you
>would have gotten rid of the cable.

I keep cable for local stations and for the occasion where the weather
is so bad that it interferes with the satellite signal. Generally I
keep my dish up during hurricanes, and my cable goes out before my
power, too. That way I can have an option of signals to watch in an
emergency.
>
>I know 3 people who made the switch from cable to satellite, and then
>switched back to cable.
>
>I never had to do that, since I already knew cable was better.

Since you never have done that, how do you know? All things being
equal on the same TV, my satellite picture is more consistently
better.

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

[Truth]

> > > > The story and acting don't change from one
> > > > format to the other and get better or worse.
> > >
> > > Ah, the old "... food isn't affected by the truck that carries it"
> > > argument.
> >
> > Ok, then explain to me how the acting or story in a movie changes from VHS
> > to DVD.
>
> I believe my point is that they don't. If it's a good story, or if the
> acting is outstanding, it doesn't matter if you watch the movie on DVD,
> VHS, Betamax, LaserDisk, SelectaVision, Quad, Type C 1", alpha wrap,
> omega wrap, satellite, over the air, fibre, composite, component or
> (heaven forefend) on a big screen in a dark theatre.

In fact, when I produce a movie, if there is a scene that is only going to go
across the screen for a few seconds, I refuse to spend all day setting up lights
and wasting all that time on something someone is going to miss if they blink
anyway. I aim for quality where it counts, but for movies, yes, it is better
to have a good story and actors on bad film stock, then the best film and
lighting techniques on a really poor story and bad actors.

[Truth]

> >You THINK Satellite is better, but the digital video technology is the same.
>
> I can switch between my cable feed and satellite feed and the
> difference is day and night. Any moron could tell, satellite is far
> superior.

Ok, there is obviously something else different at your particular installation
causing that much of a difference. Perhaps the cable or connection where it is
in the analog domain is not matched properly or something, and if you switched
the connections, then you would see the other one would be better instead.

They should both be exactly the same.

> I keep cable for local stations and for the occasion where the weather
> is so bad that it interferes with the satellite signal.

So why keep satellite? Swap the cables or find out what is causing the bad
picture with the cable for you and you won't need to pay for both services.

> Generally I
> keep my dish up during hurricanes, and my cable goes out before my
> power, too. That way I can have an option of signals to watch in an
> emergency.

Cable should never go out. Mine never does. Perhaps you do have an inferior
cable company in your area. By now, I thought everyone had the same exact
cable company, but then again, they might still be using the old equipment from
the company they took over and haven't had time to change it yet.

> >I know 3 people who made the switch from cable to satellite, and then
> >switched back to cable.
> >
> >I never had to do that, since I already knew cable was better.
>
> Since you never have done that, how do you know?

I just told you, I learn from other people's mistakes.

> All things being
> equal on the same TV, my satellite picture is more consistently
> better.

Let me tell you a good story that might relate to your false assumption as
well....

I recently saw a Sony TV set at a store that sells used stuff, and it was hooked
up with a bunch of other lower quality sets to a feed from a DVD player playing
the same movie on all the sets. Well the crummy GE and other TV sets looked
much better than the Sony set, which had a weak snowy picture, so no one was
buying it, even though it was priced real cheap and was a much better set.

I told a salesperson to please switch the cable going to the Sony for the one
going to the GE set. Suddenly, the Sony had the better picture than all the
other 7 or 8 sets on the line.

Try switching some cables around or use different inputs and see what
happens. Also, are both getting to your set through the same analog or
digital inputs to the set? Perhaps not, and the analog input board on the set
isn't as good quality as the digital input, or the other way around.

I would be able to figure it out right away if I was there playing with it.

[Truth]

> Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
>
> I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> is far superior.

I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

[Truth]

> The stats are that XM has a 200,000 song library, while Sirius
> has a 50,000 song library. The question is if this is good or
> bad.

Good. No one wants to get sick of good songs because they are being
played over and over again too soon. Else, just stick in a CD with all
your favorite songs and just listen to that for the rest of your life
everyday.

> In my case, and in the case of many casual listeners, XM plays songs
> that people haven't heard of

You keep saying that, but I have yet to experience that on the rock
stations, except for obviously, the new music or unsigned artists channels,
which no one has heard of before.

You just don't know as many songs and artists as many of us XM fans do.

> , and it gets painful to listen to since
> you don't know or like the music.

Understandable. But keep in mind there are many of us that DO know all
the songs they play, and even like those songs, they bring back good
memories, especially when you haven't heard them on the radio for many
decades.

> Sirius' smaller library means that
> you are likely to familiar with much more of their music.

And sick of it much faster. While other stations were playing the same
songs over and over again every hour, I would make sure the same song never
played twice in 6 hours, and I was able to get people to listen to my
station for a much longer period. Other stations program toward market
research that says people only listen to radio for 15 minutes at a time, and
I realize the reason is because they keep programming toward that statistic,
so I program so they could listen longer, and they did.

> If you are music hobbyist and like hearing weird stuff, then XM is
> certainly for you.

And they have lots of weird stuff too, yes, like MusicLab and whatnot, but
even without those, that I don't listen to much, the rock channels don't
have anything I don't recognize.

> I was a pretty serious music fan in the 70's and 80's. But when I
> listen to 80's on 8 on XM, I never heard of 2/3 of what they play.

I find that very interesting. Your local radio stations obviously missed
a lot of good songs, everything I hear on those channels I remember hearing
on the radio back then.

Of course, they mix a lot of different formats on the decades channels, so
you probably only listened to songs from those decades on ONE format radio
station, while some of us listened to several formats of stations in those
decades and thus heard a lot more music and songs than you did.

In the 80s, you had ballads from lite rock stations, hair bands, album rock
bands, punk, new wave, and no station played more than one type usually, and
they sort of lump them all together on the decades channels.

> I cannot play this channel for my friends since they all ask what
> that crap is--they never heard of it either.

Your friends are like you, they only listened to the same format stations in
those decades. Thus why you are friends and get along so well, you have
like tastes.

> I think XM intentionally
> plays the obscure stuff since the royalities are cheaper

These were all hits played on radio at one time! You just were not
listening to more than one station! Some of us tuned around and listened
to many different stations and formats in the 70s and 80s, and know more
music than you do.

> , so they don't
> have to pay as much as they would if they played the good music like
> Sirius does.

It doesn't matter what songs you play, they have to pay the same costs.
Every station, even the FMs are surveyed once a year to try and get an idea
of what songs are being played, but what is being played doesn't effect the
fees you pay. And local high school stations have to pay too. Anyone
that plays music has to pay.

[Truth]

> > I think XM intentionally
> > plays the obscure stuff since the royalities are cheaper, so they don't
> > have to pay as much as they would if they played the good music like
> > Sirius does.
>
> That's not how "royalties" work. It costs Sirius or XM the same to licence the play
> of any given protected music, no matter whether they play a big-time artist or a
> complete unknown.

Correct.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <419A2481.98AE2DB2@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> Ok, there is obviously something else different at your particular
> installation
> causing that much of a difference. Perhaps the cable or connection where
> it is
> in the analog domain is not matched properly or something, and if you
> switched
> the connections, then you would see the other one would be better instead.
>
> They should both be exactly the same.

Nope. Consider the signal paths:

Satellite: Studio to NOC to uplink to bird to home. ADDA

Network: Studio to NOC to uplink to bird, to TV station, through TV
station, to STL to transmitter, through transmitter, over the air to
cable antenna, to cable headend, through cable headend, out the trunk,
through the splitters, down the street, off the pole, into the house and
into the set. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (I might have missed a step).

do the math.

[Boston Blackie]

In article <419A24C3.F63E1755@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
> >
> > I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> > particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> > is far superior.
>
> I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Remember, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Truth]

> > Ok, there is obviously something else different at your particular
> > installation
> > causing that much of a difference. Perhaps the cable or connection where
> > it is
> > in the analog domain is not matched properly or something, and if you
> > switched
> > the connections, then you would see the other one would be better instead.
> >
> > They should both be exactly the same.
>
> Nope. Consider the signal paths:
>
> Satellite: Studio to NOC to uplink to bird to home. ADDA
>
> Network: Studio to NOC to uplink to bird, to TV station, through TV
> station, to STL to transmitter, through transmitter, over the air to
> cable antenna, to cable headend, through cable headend, out the trunk,
> through the splitters, down the street, off the pole, into the house and
> into the set. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (I might have missed a step).

You are comparing a local broadcast station to a network like CNN.

When comparing CNN on one, to CNN on the other, there is no difference. And
forget about down the street and poles and whatnot, it is digital the whole way,
so it doesn't matter.

Unless you are comparing analog cable to digital satellite, but then cable would
have the advantage!

> do the math.

Math is great for Isotropic antennas, but in the real world...

The math never takes into account that the one connector from one service is
corroded, and the other not. Or that one goes into VIDEO ONE of the TV through
an analog preamp, and VIDEO TWO input through a digital converter, and the
quality is not the same.

People actually buy DVD players, then because their TV has no video input, use a
cheap RF modulator so they can watch DVDs through channel 3 of their TV. Then
they watch a DVD at a friends house on a cheaper DVD player through a better TV
set and think their friend has a better DVD player than they do.

If anything, satellite television having to go through a satellite TWICE when
cable just takes it down and sends it through the cable while satellite takes it
down from satellite and then up to their satellite again, would make satellite
television worse than cable with your math.

[Truth]

> > > Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
> > >
> > > I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> > > particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> > > is far superior.
> >
> > I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
>
> Remember, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Right! But in this case, I have seen and heard it, so I know.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <419A24C3.F63E1755@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
> >
> > I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> > particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> > is far superior.
>
> I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

I disagree, and I can't see how anyone who has actually listened
to both head to head can argue otherwise.

-john-

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

[lab~rat]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:01:24 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> puked:

>> >You THINK Satellite is better, but the digital video technology is the same.
>>
>> I can switch between my cable feed and satellite feed and the
>> difference is day and night. Any moron could tell, satellite is far
>> superior.
>
>Ok, there is obviously something else different at your particular installation
>causing that much of a difference. Perhaps the cable or connection where it is
>in the analog domain is not matched properly or something, and if you switched
>the connections, then you would see the other one would be better instead.
>
>They should both be exactly the same.

Whatever you say, they aren't. In fact, they weren't in my other
house, either.
>
>> I keep cable for local stations and for the occasion where the weather
>> is so bad that it interferes with the satellite signal.
>
>So why keep satellite? Swap the cables or find out what is causing the bad
>picture with the cable for you and you won't need to pay for both services.

Because my cable sucks, goes out and costs more for the programming I
get with satellite.
>
>> Generally I
>> keep my dish up during hurricanes, and my cable goes out before my
>> power, too. That way I can have an option of signals to watch in an
>> emergency.
>
>Cable should never go out. Mine never does. Perhaps you do have an inferior
>cable company in your area. By now, I thought everyone had the same exact
>cable company, but then again, they might still be using the old equipment from
>the company they took over and haven't had time to change it yet.

The company is Comcast that took over Jones Intercable probably ten
years ago.
>
>> >I know 3 people who made the switch from cable to satellite, and then
>> >switched back to cable.
>> >
>> >I never had to do that, since I already knew cable was better.
>>
>> Since you never have done that, how do you know?
>
>I just told you, I learn from other people's mistakes.
>
>> All things being
>> equal on the same TV, my satellite picture is more consistently
>> better.
>
>Let me tell you a good story that might relate to your false assumption as
>well....
>
>I recently saw a Sony TV set at a store that sells used stuff, and it was hooked
>up with a bunch of other lower quality sets to a feed from a DVD player playing
>the same movie on all the sets. Well the crummy GE and other TV sets looked
>much better than the Sony set, which had a weak snowy picture, so no one was
>buying it, even though it was priced real cheap and was a much better set.
>
>I told a salesperson to please switch the cable going to the Sony for the one
>going to the GE set. Suddenly, the Sony had the better picture than all the
>other 7 or 8 sets on the line.
>
>Try switching some cables around or use different inputs and see what
>happens. Also, are both getting to your set through the same analog or
>digital inputs to the set? Perhaps not, and the analog input board on the set
>isn't as good quality as the digital input, or the other way around.

I plugged a TV in to the very outside line, and the quality was the
same. I had a Communistcast bastard out to check it out, and he
pretty much told me that's what I get.
>
>I would be able to figure it out right away if I was there playing with it.
>

Uh, keep your fantasies to yourself, sicko!

--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

[Truth]

> >Ok, there is obviously something else different at your particular installation
> >causing that much of a difference. Perhaps the cable or connection where it is
> >in the analog domain is not matched properly or something, and if you switched
> >the connections, then you would see the other one would be better instead.
> >
> >They should both be exactly the same.
>
> Whatever you say, they aren't. In fact, they weren't in my other
> house, either.

Ok good. Are you using the same connectors or inputs? Even some TV sets with two
identical analog video inputs, has a problem with the preamp inside the set on one
card and THAT causes one video input to not look as good as the other. Try switching
and using the other input for the other source. When people move, they often just
hook everything up the same way at the new place too, and a problem inside the TV set
would still be there too.

But it could be that your cable company is really poor in your area, and with your
move, you still ended up with the same company or crummy local equipment.

> >> I keep cable for local stations and for the occasion where the weather
> >> is so bad that it interferes with the satellite signal.
> >
> >So why keep satellite? Swap the cables or find out what is causing the bad
> >picture with the cable for you and you won't need to pay for both services.
>
> Because my cable sucks, goes out and costs more for the programming I
> get with satellite.

So why keep cable?

> The company is Comcast that took over Jones Intercable probably ten
> years ago.

Ok. I know of a local area with the same exact situation. Jones had really CRAP
equipment and was a very poor cable provider. Comcast took over many companies here
too, but did not change all the equipment yet, so even though everyone has Comcast,
some have Comcast through old Jones equipment, while others, like me, have the best
system there was in the area. I worked at many of them installing equipment and
building their studios and know first hand. I also brought programming to all of
them and could see which operations were better than the others. Now they all have
the Comcast name, but are using the same facilities from the old companies.

Yes, Jones is shit. And technically, you may still be on their equipment even though
Comcast took them over.

However.... If you really have DIGITAL cable, that would be something that was added
AFTER Comcast took over, not something Jones even had, correct? New broadband
fiber would most likely have been put in your area before digital cable was
offered. DIGITAL cable should STILL be the same quality as DIGITAL satellite.

If anything, the satellite should look worse, because when they get it, they have to
send it AGAIN through their satellite to get to you, so it runs through satellites
TWICE. As soon as cable gets it from the first satellite, they just pump that to
you digitally without going through another satellite.

> >> >I know 3 people who made the switch from cable to satellite, and then
> >> >switched back to cable.
> >> >
> >> >I never had to do that, since I already knew cable was better.
> >>
> >> Since you never have done that, how do you know?
> >
> >I just told you, I learn from other people's mistakes.
> >
> >> All things being
> >> equal on the same TV, my satellite picture is more consistently
> >> better.
> >
> >Let me tell you a good story that might relate to your false assumption as
> >well....
> >
> >I recently saw a Sony TV set at a store that sells used stuff, and it was hooked
> >up with a bunch of other lower quality sets to a feed from a DVD player playing
> >the same movie on all the sets. Well the crummy GE and other TV sets looked
> >much better than the Sony set, which had a weak snowy picture, so no one was
> >buying it, even though it was priced real cheap and was a much better set.
> >
> >I told a salesperson to please switch the cable going to the Sony for the one
> >going to the GE set. Suddenly, the Sony had the better picture than all the
> >other 7 or 8 sets on the line.
> >
> >Try switching some cables around or use different inputs and see what
> >happens. Also, are both getting to your set through the same analog or
> >digital inputs to the set? Perhaps not, and the analog input board on the set
> >isn't as good quality as the digital input, or the other way around.
>
> I plugged a TV in to the very outside line, and the quality was the
> same.

You have analog cable then. (no DIGITAL converter cable box right? just TV by
itself?)

> I had a Communistcast bastard out to check it out, and he
> pretty much told me that's what I get.

I have a feeling you have analog cable. Now under ideal conditions, analog cable is
far superior to digital cable, but with the crap Jones set up, I can understand if you
have analog cable that has ghosts, static, weak signals and what not. People who
had Jones here had the same problems.

But if you get bad pictures with things like ghosts, snow and whatnot, it is
definitely NOT digital. Because digital either comes in rock solid, or not at all,
there is no in-between, and why I said you shouldn't have any difference between
digital cable and satellite.

You probably have ANALOG cable and satellite, and POOR old cables going to your house
feeding you the analog.

[Truth]

> > > Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
> > >
> > > I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> > > particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> > > is far superior.
> >
> > I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
>
> I disagree, and I can't see how anyone who has actually listened
> to both head to head can argue otherwise.

You and 600,000 others. But MILLIONS of people see it our way.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <419A5337.9F7CBCFB@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > > > Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
> > > >
> > > > I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> > > > particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> > > > is far superior.
> > >
> > > I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
> >
> > I disagree, and I can't see how anyone who has actually listened
> > to both head to head can argue otherwise.
>
> You and 600,000 others. But MILLIONS of people see it our way.

XM has saturated their market, and they have little room for
growth beyond the Christmas rush. Otherwise, they would be
expanding their product line rather than changing focus to
aviation and commercial products rather than the consumer
market. By the fact that they are not profitable today, their
days may be numbered.

Sirius, on the other hand, has far better programming and is
poised for significant growth. They have indicated that they
are committed to bringing more and more programming without
charging extra, so poeple that bother to look will see the
outstanding value. This will cement Sirius' long term
financial success.

-john-

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

[Truth]

> > > I disagree, and I can't see how anyone who has actually listened
> > > to both head to head can argue otherwise.
> >
> > You and 600,000 others. But MILLIONS of people see it our way.
>
> XM has saturated their market, and they have little room for
> growth beyond the Christmas rush.

This Christmas is only important that it will finally put XM the winner over
Sirius, like the Christmas that finally put Betamax out of the consumer market.

As long as they provide good programming, then they will do just fine. Did FM
radios finally saturate their market, or are people still buying those? The
manufacturers of FM and AM radios are still doing just fine. Those selling
Betamax are not.

> Otherwise, they would be
> expanding their product line rather than changing focus to
> aviation and commercial products rather than the consumer
> market.

For the same reason McDonalds tries to market health food meals, or cell phone
manufacturers put cameras into phones, because big corporations always make really
stupid ideas come to life.

> By the fact that they are not profitable today, their
> days may be numbered.
>
> Sirius, on the other hand, has far better programming and is
> poised for significant growth.

Holy CRAP! You have to be a Sirius executive to say something like that.

[Peter]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:

> So long this bullshit with two separate receivers for each is needed,
> only ONE will be around much longer after the consumer decides which
> one it is going to be, and so far it is XM.

My biggest gripe is having to purchase two separate receivers. Awhile
back, there was talk of a combined receiver unit. That way, you
wouldn't have to agonize over deciding which system to go with before
spending hundreds of bucks getting set up for it. Actually, since I'm
mainly interested in getting Howard Stern and MLB, it looks like I'm
screwed unless I not only invest in two separate systems but also fork
over $23/month in subscriber fees. Frankly, I'm not sure listening to
the radio is worth 23 bucks a month.

IMO, as much as I believe satellite radio is the way of the future, I
think the way it's starting out (with needing to choose which system
to go with) is dragging down the initiation process. Fact is, I'd have
satellite radio right now if I didn't have to make these damn choices
between service companies and their compatible equipment.

[Truth]

> > So long this bullshit with two separate receivers for each is needed,
> > only ONE will be around much longer after the consumer decides which
> > one it is going to be, and so far it is XM.
>
> My biggest gripe is having to purchase two separate receivers. Awhile
> back, there was talk of a combined receiver unit. That way, you
> wouldn't have to agonize over deciding which system to go with before
> spending hundreds of bucks getting set up for it.

Yes, that would make much more sense. Just like we all have FM radios
that can get in every company's FM radio station, not just one company.

> Actually, since I'm
> mainly interested in getting Howard Stern and MLB, it looks like I'm
> screwed unless I not only invest in two separate systems but also fork
> over $23/month in subscriber fees. Frankly, I'm not sure listening to
> the radio is worth 23 bucks a month.

And as much as I would like to be able to listen to Stern uncensored, I am
not buying a Sirius radio just to get his show.

But even if there was one receiver that got both systems, I would not
subscribe to both to get one show. So there should be just ONE system
(VHS or Beta) that everyone uses to put their programs on. XM could sell
half their channels to Sirius.

> IMO, as much as I believe satellite radio is the way of the future, I
> think the way it's starting out (with needing to choose which system
> to go with) is dragging down the initiation process.

Just as it was with VHS and Beta. But blame the FCC for ALLOWING two
incompatible services to begin with. Just as they screwed up AM stereo
by allowing every station to choose which of two systems they wanted to
use. The radio manufacturers didn't have one system they could go with,
thus it failed. And if you are a company like Sony or Alpine and have
to CHOOSE one system over the other, that sucks too. Same with car
manufacturers. Why can't people have a Chevy with a factory installed
Sirius, or Ford with a factory installed XM radio? Bullshit all around.

> Fact is, I'd have
> satellite radio right now if I didn't have to make these damn choices
> between service companies and their compatible equipment.

Wait at least until after this Christmas. I predict XM will finally be so
far ahead of Sirius, that Sirius will finally have to throw in the
towel. But wait and see to be sure.

Sure you could still buy Beta machines even after no video stores offered
rentals in Beta, but by that time, no intelligent person was still having a
hard time making the decision to go with VHS just for compatibility sake.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<419A5337.9F7CBCFB@sucks.com>...
> > > > Xm has much broader musical content than Sirius. It isn't even close.
> > > >
> > > > I think either company is much better than FM. But for those who are
> > > > particularly demanding of music content, there is no comparison -- XM
> > > > is far superior.
> > >
> > > I agree and can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
> >
> > I disagree, and I can't see how anyone who has actually listened
> > to both head to head can argue otherwise.
>
> You and 600,000 others. But MILLIONS of people see it our way.


Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for subscribers
when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.

[KK]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:56:56 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:

> XM has saturated their market,
>Sirius, on the other hand, has far better programming and is poised for
>significant growth.

Your preference for Sirius' programming notwithstanding, how is XM's
market "saturated" and Sirius' "poised for significant growth"? Their
markets are the same.



> They have indicated that they are committed to
> bringing more and more programming without charging extra

But they do charge an extra $3 per month over XM, right?

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <pan.2004.11.17.13.56.07.8600@furburger.net>, KK
<remove_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:56:56 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
> > XM has saturated their market,
> >Sirius, on the other hand, has far better programming and is poised for
> >significant growth.
>
> Your preference for Sirius' programming notwithstanding, how is XM's
> market "saturated" and Sirius' "poised for significant growth"? Their
> markets are the same.

XM has something close to 2-million subscribers. Given that they
are moving thier focus from consumer programmming to commercial
services and aviation, they themselves feel that they have just
about tapped out their consumer market.

Sirius, on the other hand, is keeping their eye on the consumer
market, and are rolling out more and more new programming, and
bringing it on without any extra fees. As a result, they will
continue to grow and prosper, leaving XM behind in the dust.

> > They have indicated that they are committed to
> > bringing more and more programming without charging extra
>
> But they do charge an extra $3 per month over XM, right?

If you buy a long term plan, the difference in the price
evaporates over time. In addition, XM charges $1.99 extra
for some channels, so if you get the whole package, XM is
actually $1 more expensive than Sirius.

-john-

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

[KK]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:22:33 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote:

>> Your preference for Sirius' programming notwithstanding, how is XM's
>> market "saturated" and Sirius' "poised for significant growth"? Their
>> markets are the same.
>
> XM has something close to 2-million subscribers. Given that they are
> moving thier focus from consumer programmming to commercial services and
> aviation, they themselves feel that they have just about tapped out their
> consumer market.

> Sirius, on the other hand, is keeping their eye on the consumer market,
> and are rolling out more and more new programming, and bringing it on
> without any extra fees. As a result, they will continue to grow and
> prosper, leaving XM behind in the dust.

Whatever their current marketing focus, they share the same market. As an
insider, you may be too close to the subject to see that the public sees
the two services pretty much as interchangably equal.

Anybody who's a potential XM customer is a potential Sirius customer, and
vice-versa.

[D Ray]

>
> Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
> subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
> Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for subscribers
> when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
> and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
> fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.

Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
600K after 11 quarters.

[Bob Haberkost]

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0411171442.28bfc22@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
>> subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
>> Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for subscribers
>> when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
>> and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
>> fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.

> Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
> 600K after 11 quarters.

Which actually is consistent with the point being made; XM had no competition, and
did only slightly better than SIRI did with what could be considered stiff
competition with a better-established and -promoted incumbent. If it was a race, the
XM won. But the finish line is still a long way off, since neither one of them is
profitable yet.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Truth]

> >> Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
> >> subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
> >> Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for subscribers
> >> when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
> >> and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
> >> fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.
>
> > Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
> > 600K after 11 quarters.
>
> Which actually is consistent with the point being made; XM had no competition, and
> did only slightly better than SIRI did with what could be considered stiff
> competition with a better-established and -promoted incumbent. If it was a race, the
> XM won.

The finish line is December 25th. That is election day and we will know who the
winner is.

[Truth]

> > Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
> > subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
> > Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for subscribers
> > when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
> > and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
> > fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.
>
> Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
> 600K after 11 quarters.

And don't forget Sirius had their birds in the sky first and had a head
start in the whole game.

Howard Stern is now walking the streets handing out free Sirius radios in
the desperate attempt to save Sirius before Christmas.

[yqf@my-deja.com]

Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message news:<419C0431.97F1D26E@sucks.com>...
> > > Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
> > > subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
> > > Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for subscribers
> > > when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
> > > and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
> > > fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.
> >
> > Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
> > 600K after 11 quarters.

WRONG.

Sirius was at 700K subs after 9 quarters (Q3 2002 - Q3 2004) and as I
pointed out, Sirius had to compete against XM for subscribers for that
whole time while XM had a monopoly for when they first started out.

> And don't forget Sirius had their birds in the sky first and had a head
> start in the whole game.

Right, because that means... well it means nothing. Just like it would
mean nothing if one of the companies got their FCC license before the
other.

It's all about who did a better job of signing up subscribers once
they started offering service, and XM *BARELY* outsold Sirius when
comparing each of their first two years despite the fact that XM had
*NO* competition for their first year.

Given those facts, it's clear that Sirius has done a better job of
signing up subs than XM did in it's first two years. Imagine if Sirius
had the "no competition free ride" at it's beginning like XM did.

One good rule of thumb to consider when reading these posts about
Sirius and XM... if this clown who calls himself "Truth" said it, it's
probably wrong. Just do a Google search to see all the times he's
gotten slapped down for posting "facts" that were provably wrong. He
seems to be a dumb guy who is very defensive about the system he sunk
a whopping $150 of start up costs into. The poor slob even repeatedly
brings up the fact that Sirius subscriptions cost 10 cents a day more
than XM.

[KK]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:19:13 +0000, Bob Haberkost wrote:

>>> Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
>>> subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
>>> Sirius has
>
>> Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
>> 600K after 11 quarters.
>
> Which actually is consistent with the point being made;


Yeah, but it's not consistent at all with the 'fact' you posted first, and
rather than (or at least in addition to) insisting that he's proved you
right, you should concede that your fact was wrong.

[Bob Haberkost]

"KK" <remove_KK_@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.18.13.29.41.523406@furburger.net...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:19:13 +0000, Bob Haberkost wrote:

>>>> Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
>>>> subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
>>>> Sirius has

>>> Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
>>> 600K after 11 quarters.

>> Which actually is consistent with the point being made;

> Yeah, but it's not consistent at all with the 'fact' you posted first, and
> rather than (or at least in addition to) insisting that he's proved you
> right, you should concede that your fact was wrong.

Please address your complaint to the writer. The "fact" you take issue with wasn't
mine.

I would like to point out, though, that there's another model that might be operating
here...the "two fast-food joints on the corner" scenario. Here, the first joint does
okay, but it's only after the second one is built that both do, quite
counter-intuitively, better. So in this case, XM, being the pioneer, has done okay.
But it wasn't until Sirius came online that they're both doing better, with Sirius's
growth going at a rate where they'll both have a reasonably even split of the overall
market in time. Certainly Sirius' growth shows that they're not to be written off
any time soon, despite the baseless claims made to the contrary by "truth".
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

[Truth]

> >>>> Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
> >>>> subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
> >>>> Sirius has
>
> >>> Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
> >>> 600K after 11 quarters.
>
> >> Which actually is consistent with the point being made;
>
> > Yeah, but it's not consistent at all with the 'fact' you posted first, and
> > rather than (or at least in addition to) insisting that he's proved you
> > right, you should concede that your fact was wrong.
>
> Please address your complaint to the writer. The "fact" you take issue with wasn't
> mine.

Most times I don't ever look at the names, only the subject lines and just comment to
statements made, not even knowing or caring who made them. That is not important,
except for people who are targeting specific individuals to harass them because that is
how they get enjoyment. Not knowing who you are debating with, also means you are
less likely to make arguments or disagree based on personal feelings about a specific
individual too.

I find too many people place too much on WHO makes statements, rather than paying
attention just to the statements. In fact, years ago I tried an experiment. I found
certain individuals that would find fault in every single thing I would say. Then I
posted under another service and IP and name as someone else, and said the same exact
statements, but then all of a sudden those same individuals were in agreement with the
same exact statements.

Instead of making arguments toward posts based on who is posting, it would be nice if
people would just pay attention to the statements and forget everything else.

Whatever offense you have taken by my reply to a statement that was not yours, be
assured was no personal attack on you, because even right now as I type this, I have no
idea who I am replying to! I can't see the name of the poster from this window, and
didn't really pay attention to the name before this reply window opened up.

> I would like to point out, though, that there's another model that might be operating
> here...the "two fast-food joints on the corner" scenario. Here, the first joint does
> okay, but it's only after the second one is built that both do, quite
> counter-intuitively, better.

In my case, a great independent store sold great products at great prices. Then a
bigger chain opened up across the street from them. They lowered their prices so low
that the other store could not complete. They were able to take the loss with the
lower prices, because the rest of their chain was making more than enough money to take
the loss at this one location. As soon as the good store folded and went out of
business, the new store raised all it's prices again above what the other store had
charged. In this case, competition was a bad thing.

> So in this case, XM, being the pioneer, has done okay.
> But it wasn't until Sirius came online that they're both doing better

For many things, I will agree. Like XM finally making their music channels commercial
free, because Sirius did it first. But then again, Sirius deciding to waste bandwidth
on sports, made XM do that too, which I don't like.

> Certainly Sirius' growth shows that they're not to be written off
> any time soon

They were right at the point of going away for good, but then Stern came around. Even
with just Stern, I have been saying there is no way they can still come out from as far
behind they are. HOWEVER.....

Now that I know that Mel Karmizan is going to be CEO of Sirius, and the history of Mel
Karmizan and Stern working together, I now actually believe it is POSSIBLE for Sirius to
be able to come ahead and be the dominant service.

Because XM has a better selection of programming than Sirius NOW, but with Mel being CEO,
Sirius could change a lot, and I believe it will. Mel could really turn Sirius around
big time.

They have a big problem with little time to act before Christmas, and can not change
their whole line up in the next few weeks, and Christmas sales are going to determine if
Sirius has a chance or not. But if they can come up strong in sales before the end of
December, then since we now have this HUGE change of Mel Karmizan as CEO of Sirrius, I am
open to them now having a chance to come out and be a huge threat to XM.

I still want to wait until January before I make a final prediction, but for now, I no
longer am going to write off Sirius due to the recent change of events.

I find the news of Mel Karmizan being CEO of Sirius MUCH bigger news than Stern being
with Sirius. Especially as close as those two have been working together over the
years. Obviously the BOTH of these two have been planning this for some time together.

We shall see what happens with Christmas sales.

If Sirius gets a serious change over with this new management, I may eventually be
getting a Sirius radio too.

For now, XM is the best available at today's date.

But I admit, with this new news, it is POSSIBLE that this could change.

[Sirius_Rich]

D Ray Wrote:
> >
> > Nice try, except that only about that same 600,000 number of XM
> > subscribers existed when XM had only been in service for as long as
> > Sirius has, (and XM didn't have to compete with Sirius for
> subscribers
> > when it started offering service), but you continue to compare apple
> > and oranges with the hope that people are as stupid as you are and
> > fall for the false comparison. Your ignorance continues to shine.
>
> Actually, XM hit 600K in its 7th quarter of operations, while SIRI hit
> 600K after 11 quarters.


Care to show your math on this Frontmed?
--
Sirius_Rich
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by Sirius_Rich

[david@timecalc.com]

Goddammit Rich.

This is one place I thought I could get away from you stalking me.

While there is no "math" involved, from my past dealings with you I
know damned well you can't understand anything beyond 8th grade
arithmetic anyway.

Please, can you NOT come here and ruin this thread as you have every
other damned place on the Internet. You're a fucking liar who has
nothing better to do than to follow me from board to board like Mark
Chapman or someone?