Article today on MSN Money:

Why Sirius is still doomed
The merger plan isn't going to rescue the satellite radio company or those who invested billions in it. Here's why the company is still in a death march.

The announcement of a proposed merger between Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI, news, msgs) and its archrival XM Satellite Radio (XMSR, news, msgs) was treated by most of the media this week as if were just another financial event to be studied through the prism of balance-sheet analysis and the federal regulatory approval process.

But the merger plan actually amounts to the death of a dream for investors who came to believe that shares of Sirius -- propelled skyward for a short time by the hiring of snarky talk show host Howard Stern -- would make them rich beyond compare.

For while the merger might ultimately save the company from total oblivion, it is unlikely to save investors from billions of dollars in losses incurred over the past several years or, perhaps more importantly, from a loss of faith in stock ownership.

Millions of people bought Sirius shares at $6 to $8 for their retirement accounts, and rode them down to $3.50, never losing faith in Stern. At this point, they need to face up to the fact that they're screwed. Stern made half a billion. They will make nothing. They can file SIRI stock certificates away under "S" for stupid. They blew it.

World domination
How did this happen? It's a weird deal, it really is. For reasons that are little understood, certain public companies occasionally acquire an iconic status that inflates their market value light-years beyond real value. Optimism overpowers common sense, and investors pile into shares of an unprofitable but sexy company which they believe will surprise skeptics and dominate the world.

Sirius earned that status around 2003, after it was rescued from bankruptcy by the skin of its teeth. Shares had plunged from the mid-$60s in 2000 to less than $1 by 2002. They then gently tripled to around $3 when its "radio in the sky" service launched nationwide. Investors figured a dozen years of fitful planning and marketing, and the expenditure of massive amounts of money, were finally about to pay off.

The company was considered special in part due to the great timing of its service debut. The bear market of 2000-2002 was ending, the Iraq war was starting, the president was riding high, optimism was returning and investors were in the mood to fall in love. I recommended the stock at $1.15 in May that year in a column, arguing that it was like buying into the early days of cable TV.

Commuters stuck in vast suburban traffic jams from Long Island in New York to the San Fernando Valley in Southern California were the first to catch on to the promise of satellite radio and buy shares of Sirius and XM in mid-2003. No longer did they have to listen to the endless commercials and DJ drivel of conventional FM radio -- they were free! They filled stock chat boards with endless messages about their love for the service, which cost around $10 per month, passed around spreadsheets showing the incredible profits the companies would earn if they only converted 5% to 10% of their potential audience, and vowed to put their kids' college savings money into the stocks.

Auto makers, which had already blown millions of dollars by backing satellite radio's early years in the belief that they would help kick-start sales, started installing the devices at their factories. Analysts caught the fever, and published estimates that Sirius would rise to $10, $20 and beyond -- more than five times the price at the time.

But the fervor really kicked into overdrive in October 2004, when Stern announced that he would bolt from his long-term syndicated radio deal at CBS in New York for what seemed like the perfect setup at Sirius. No longer would he be hamstrung by restrictions on foul language imposed on conventional radio by federal regulators. He would be free to speak freely on a satellite broadcast and cuss out his parade of cross-dressing, dope-smoking, sex-switching guests on the air in any way he saw fit.

Trading satellites for Apples
That sounded good, as Stern was the most popular radio host in America at the time, and shares soared on the news. But the price Sirius chief Mel Karmazin agreed to pay for Stern's services -- $500 million -- was utterly outrageous and emblematic of the company's unconscionable overspending on content, hardware subsidies and distribution. By then the iPod had also begun to come into vogue, and I came to believe that given a choice between listening to their own tunes on a portable device and listening to programming shoved down their ears over the air (even it was commercial-free), consumers would prefer the former. I wrote a column in mid-December 2004 encouraging readers to sell Sirius at $9 and buy iPod maker Apple (AAPL, news, msgs) at $31.Sign up to receive Jon Markman’s weekly SuperModels newsletter.

Since that time, Sirius shares have pretty much gone straight down, sinking more than 50%, while Apple shares have gone straight up, advancing 170%. But you know, it didn't take a genius, or a psychic, to understand why this would happen. It was just common sense. No matter how popular Sirius became, it was almost impossible to determine how it would ever make a profit -- which is the only thing that should ultimately matter to investors. Apple, in contrast, was already wildly profitable, and set to become more so.

The merger announcement lifted Sirius by about 10% on Monday, and the company issued an earnings report Wednesday that was not quite as terrible as usual. But make no mistake: The death march is on. If the merger deal fails to gain regulators' approval -- and the betting now is that its chances of success are less than 30% -- Sirius shares are headed back under $3 by the end of the year.

Fine Print
Radio industry magazine Talkers reported this week that Stern's annual ranking among peers had dropped to #12 this year from #1 last year. Since his audience on satellite radio is a 10th what it was over the air, his influence has shrunk dramatically. . . . The latest Sirius and XM earnings reports showed that subscriber net adds were down sharply from last year. . . . One of the most popular iPod accessories these days is a transmitter that lets you play your MP3s through your car stereo. My friends in Hollywood say that's the main way they listen to music in their BMWs during their commutes now, eschewing satellite radio even if it is built into their cars. "Satellite stations play the same old songs, even if they are commercial free," said one buddy. "Music now is about listening to what you want, when you want it."

What a joke of an article on so many levels.

Comparing Sirius stock to Apple stock? And this guy is a financial analyst?

If people bought Sirius stock at $6 because of Stern and failed to cut their losses, then these people are simply foolish.

Anyone buying XM or Sirius stock is a gambler, not an investor. These are not blue chips that you tuck away in your retirement portfolio and hold forever. They are purely speculative, and high risk.

Spending $500 million on Stern turned out to be the right move. Without Stern Sirius would have already gone under. Even if you have a conservative estimate of the "Stern effect" that contract has already paid for itself in new subscribers.

The author is negative on the merger, yet in the last paragraph makes a strong argument for the merger.

stern brought them back that money in 1 year.... oh man... who wrote that? was it ZeroHour... lol

But the price Sirius chief Mel Karmazin agreed to pay for Stern's services -- $500 million -- was utterly outrageous and emblematic of the company's unconscionable overspending on content, hardware subsidies and distribution.

Agreed...the author is way off! Mel Karmazin wasn't even employed at Sirius when Stern signed his contract! I don't believe Mel would've paid that for Howard, I think he knew he could get Howard cheaper considering that Howard was about done anyway with the FCC hot on his ass.

If anybody can save Sirius mel can! Take that to the bank!

I think that article was written by an O&A fan.

I think that article was written by an O&A fan.
Damn, you're on to us.:)

The article is very negative. But if the reader takes of their rose colored glasses the reader will realize the author is right. Especially here where he mentions content and subsidies:

That sounded good, as Stern was the most popular radio host in America at the time, and shares soared on the news. But the price Sirius chief Mel Karmazin agreed to pay for Stern's services -- $500 million -- was utterly outrageous and emblematic of the company's unconscionable overspending on content, hardware subsidies and distribution. By then the iPod had also begun to come into vogue, and I came to believe that given a choice between listening to their own tunes on a portable device and listening to programming shoved down their ears over the air (even it was commercial-free), consumers would prefer the former. I wrote a column in mid-December 2004 encouraging readers to sell Sirius at $9 and buy iPod maker Apple (AAPL, news, msgs) at $31.


Both companies did spend way too much for content. Both companies did ignore the IPod competition, both companies are now paying the price for those terrible decisions.

stern brought them back that money in 1 year...

No he hasn't.

((((But the price Sirius chief Mel Karmazin agreed to pay for Stern's services -- $500 million)))))

Mel wasn't even employed by sirius when stern signed.

Also one could argue that Stern saved sirius,that if he hadn't signed they would have went under by now.

((((But the price Sirius chief Mel Karmazin agreed to pay for Stern's services -- $500 million)))))

Mel wasn't even employed by sirius when stern signed.

whether or not mel was the one who signed howard isn't the point. the "company" paid him a ridiculous amount of money, especially considering they were and are operating out of such an enormous financial hole.

Also one could argue that Stern saved sirius,that if he hadn't signed they would have went under by now.

perhaps, but he clearly didn't do enough, as evidenced by the fact that a merger is the only real option for the future. XM has made the same mistakes...betting the farm on paying enormous fees for content. not foreseeing the content "competition" from ipods and other entertainment outlets and relying on big name celebritys and costly sports liscening was the big mistake made by both compaines.

whether or not mel was the one who signed howard isn't the point. the "company" paid him a ridiculous amount of money, especially considering they were and are operating out of such an enormous financial hole.
First of all, $500M is for the entire show. All salaries and expenses. It does not all go to Howard, though I'm sure he gets a nice chunk.

Now, consider that each new subscriber nets about $10/month. That means the Stern contract pays for itself if he manages to bring in about 833,000 subscribers.

Even the most conservative Stern hater would have to admit that Stern is responsible for at least that number. In fact, it's probably at least three times that amount.

Sure, $500M is a huge amount of money, but it has already proved its worth to Sirius. In contrast, XM's huge contract to Oprah has not paid similar dividends. There was no "Oprah effect" for XM.

I don't see the Ipod as real competition, in my eyes, because I almost never listen to music on Sirius. I like to listen to Howard, Raw Dog (comedy), news and some other talk shows. I can't hear those on the Ipod....theoretically I could but it's not worth the trouble. You can't hear sporting events either so I feel the Ipod is only for a select listener, somebody that only wants to hear music....and that's nothing new. That's what cd players and cassette players before that have done, obviously with limited capabilities compare to the Ipod though.

I don't see the Ipod as real competition, in my eyes, because I almost never listen to music on Sirius. I like to listen to Howard, Raw Dog (comedy), news and some other talk shows.

i think you're in the minority here, satellite radio is first and foremost a music service, and is promoted as such. that said, i think given the option of listening to their own 10,000+ song library on the iPod OR music provided by satellite radio, a large percentage of the population will choose the former. it doesn't require a monthly subscription and one can hear whatever he/she wants instantly.

First of all, $500M is for the entire show. All salaries and expenses. It does not all go to Howard, though I'm sure he gets a nice chunk.

Now, consider that each new subscriber nets about $10/month. That means the Stern contract pays for itself if he manages to bring in about 833,000 subscribers.

Even the most conservative Stern hater would have to admit that Stern is responsible for at least that number. In fact, it's probably at least three times that amount.

Sure, $500M is a huge amount of money, but it has already proved its worth to Sirius. In contrast, XM's huge contract to Oprah has not paid similar dividends. There was no "Oprah effect" for XM.

It still comes down to the fact that neither company can make it on their own. So NFL, MLB, Oprah, Stern, etc. none of them did enough to attract the amount of subs needed to stem off the Ipod onslaught.

Why frog around with an IPOD cludged into my "BMW" radio when I can listen to any music I want to by burning a CD?

Is it because I have more download choices with IPOD? Is it that much easier to copy to IPOD than burn a CD?

-DonB2

i think you're in the minority here, satellite radio is first and foremost a music service, and is promoted as such. that said, i think given the option of listening to their own 10,000+ song library on the iPod OR music provided by satellite radio, a large percentage of the population will choose the former. it doesn't require a monthly subscription and one can hear whatever he/she wants instantly.

Each format has it's pros and cons. You can record anything you want on Ipod, but your limited to what your familiar with. While sat radio, you can select a specific type of music and hear songs you wouldn't think or remember to record on Ipod. I have both an Ipod and sat radio. Sat radio helps me tremendously in selecting songs I wouldn't even think of. You may say " you can do the same on reg radio." That is not the case. Sat radio plays a much wider variety of type of music. Rarely played classics, to B-sides to recent stuff, where many times, are better songs than the "popular" tunes played all the time on reg radio.
This is my personal experience.

Each format has it's pros and cons. You can record anything you want on Ipod, but your limited to what your familiar with. While sat radio, you can select a specific type of music and hear songs you wouldn't think or remember to record on Ipod. I have both an Ipod and sat radio. Sat radio helps me tremendously in selecting songs I wouldn't even think of. You may say " you can do the same on reg radio." That is not the case. Sat radio plays a much wider variety of type of music. Rarely played classics, to B-sides to recent stuff, where many times, are better songs than the "popular" tunes played all the time on reg radio.
This is my personal experience.

hey, i totally agree with you...that's why i own an ipod and satellite radio. i just think that many people would chose the ipod first, and not really see the need or benefit of satellite radio after the ipod experience.

I've had XM 5 years now, so obviously I like it. But if I was just NOW jumping into the sat radio market, with all the other options out there now, I'm not so sure I'd make the jump.

i think you're in the minority here, satellite radio is first and foremost a music service, and is promoted as such. that said, i think given the option of listening to their own 10,000+ song library on the iPod OR music provided by satellite radio, a large percentage of the population will choose the former. it doesn't require a monthly subscription and one can hear whatever he/she wants instantly.

The talk programs on Sirius were my main motivation for getting it. I have an iPod, and a 12 disc changer in my car and both of which never see use. There is a large portion of the country that actually uses the radio as a way to get information about the world around them. What do you think is keeping AM radio going. Satellite radio isn't first and foremost a music service, it is a content delivery system. Music, talk, news, sports, international programming etc. It is no different than cable television.

The talk programs on Sirius were my main motivation for getting it. I have an iPod, and a 12 disc changer in my car and both of which never see use. There is a large portion of the country that actually uses the radio as a way to get information about the world around them. What do you think is keeping AM radio going. Satellite radio isn't first and foremost a music service, it is a content delivery system. Music, talk, news, sports, international programming etc. It is no different than cable television.

Great point! To say Ipod competes with sat radio is not really valid. Ipod can NEVER give you specific content. Ipod is the modern version of a tape player.
Note, most Ipod users are kids. ;) They're into their music and usually couldn't care less about news, sports, talk, etc. Therefore sat radio has a service that appeals to a wider demographic. Yes, Ipod outsells sat radio. But sat radio is still very young and is steadily growing. Ipod will eventually be obsolete and consumers will scamble...again, in getting the latest.

Great point! To say Ipod competes with sat radio is not really valid. Ipod can NEVER give you specific content. Ipod is the modern version of a tape player.

if that's the case, XM & sirius will have a hard time convincing the govt. that this merger should be allowed to happen. they need to position satellite radio as one of many choices in a broad genre....terretrial radio, ipod, mobile entertainment devices, etc.

one thing that is clear is that the current satellite radio business model isn't working, or isn't working as well as had been anticipated. with all of these other choices out there (ipod and terrestrial radio included), not enough people are demonstrating a willingness to pay for the service. i hope they can turn it around, b/c people like me and you and others who frequent this area really dig our satellite radio. something has to change to get more people on board, or the industry may not survive long term.

Well I guess the "King" won't be saving the peasants. Could this be that the majority of the peasants realized that the "King" really had nothing to say, so they didn't subscribe. How do you read this turn of events?

Did Stern put another breath into Sirius or was it the counting of unsold cars installed with Sirius? Its tough to say, but I wouldn't be so quick to say Stern brought all those subscribers before seeing the numbers from the auto industry. Actually, the future may show that had Sirius not started overpaying for content they may have eeked out an existence with the auto industry contracts. But the burden of debt is too high and the price of the merger would add yet many more billions to that debt. Do I hear a funeral procession?

What is interesting is that Stern may be remembered as the "act" that was significantly overpriced and over-hyped and it brought down an industry.

Sorry guys but I am not an O&A fan just bashing Stern. I am someone who thought at the beginning that the deal would bring down the industry and it looks like it will.

Dave: You're being harsh. But it is obvious Sirius overpaid for Stern and the NFL. And XM overpaid for MLB, because none of these big time multi million $ contracts stemmed off the little $200 Ipod.

"stemmed off the little $200 Ipod.

I still don't even see the comparison being made to the IPOD.

First of all it is not free and what about downloads for the IPOD are they free or do they cost a service fee?

I know there are RIP radio sites online but they are not exactly user friendly.

I can listen to a lot of Sirius for $200.00 .

-DONB2

Directly they both play music, but if you disagree that an Ipod is competition, thats fine...

Indirectly Ipod compete for the consumers disposable cash, that can't be argued. Just look at last years Christmas sales.

Stern brought down the industry? That's a good one. 1,000% growth in one year cannot be explained by counting of unsold cars. Even if you low ball it and say Stern brought only 1,000,000 subscribers, his contract is already paid for.

If you don't believe millions of people are listening how can you explain that promotions on his show are still very successful.

I can honestly say I would not be enjoying Sirius if it had not come free with the new vehicle. And I liked it so much I gave two additional subscriptions as Christmas Presents. Although as may be noted in one of my other posts the "Better half" is very disappointed with the non lockable preset "Feature".

BTW - I do miss Discovery :mad:


-DonB2

To suggest that this article is a joke is foolish. It may not be the opinion of this focussed audience, but it has some very valid points. First, it is written from an investment point of view, so to suggest that the company has been ruined suggests that the the stock is ruined. I think most investors would agree that this company in questionable shape.

2006 revenues: $637,200,000
2006 net operating loss: $1,100,000,000! Yes that is billion!!

This is not just bad....it is really bad.

This suggests that the company has overspent, wouldn't you say? I am not suggesting that Howard Stern caused all of this, but he is the most high profile representative example of the problem.

Same with the Ipod! I have an Ipod, XM (free) in one car, Sirius in the other. I commute 1 hour to work...and this is my personal take....Stern in the morning until I get sick of him....ipod for music the rest of the way....local traffic checks when needed....local sports interest as news unfolds....but Ipod and local radio station (WRNR) remains the standard in my car. I occasionally enjoy music programming on satellite, but I mostly farm for my new music on local radio, home theater cable digital music, and HD programming sources.

I think his point is valid as the Ipod is the only portable unit of all of these technologies that does not require an antenna and can be used with so many other technologies. I use my ipod through headphones, on the deck and at the beach through a Tivoli PAL, through my stereo, and in my car. I use Sirius for 20-40 minutes a day, only in my car when I commute. If I were financially strapped, and satellite radio was competing for my entertainment dollar, it would be the first to go!

Now...if they would improve the quality of the audio, I would seriously reconsider my priorities, as then it would have a clear advantage over my Ipod...

Just one man's take...

I am still not sure how a .50 cent recordable CD is not more cost effective than a $200.00 IPOD if it is dollars and cents we are talking about here. Maybe eventually the IPOD will pay for itself since it does not require hard media.

But to each there own.

BTW- I have not listened to Howard yet.

Using Sirius for traffic is no help for me since there is not a local choice.

Main benifit of Sirius to me is being able to travel across country and not lose the station I am listening to.

I could use an IPOD or burn a CD but don't always have the time to do it.

-DonB2

I am still not sure how a .50 cent recordable CD is not more cost effective than a $200.00 IPOD if it is dollars and cents we are talking about here. Maybe eventually the IPOD will pay for itself since it does not require hard media.

But to each there own.
I tried listening to a CD, but didn't hear anything. Then I realized I had to put it in something - no car CD, so I went out and bought one for $125. Then I took the CD inside and realized yet again I needed a CD player, so I bought a cheap $50 portable. Then I went to my parent's house ... you get the picture. :rolleyes:

SimpleTheater,

Plus CD's sometimes balk at the cold you are experiencing in Upstate NY :o

-DonB2

Yeah.

The IPod is all about the conveience.

Even though a CD does sound better(way better IMHO), the fact that I could by a IPod nano with only 8GB, and have way over a thousand songs(I can't even think of 1000 songs, but at least they would be a 1000 songs "I" choose) at my fingertips is the point.

Also, look at the cost effectiveness of the two.

With a 30GB IPod for $249 at WalMart, you can't beat what you can do with it. Audio+Video+Pictures, and you can take it anywhere.

With a satellite radio unit you HAVE TO BE connected to an antenna to receive the content you want. And the portable units for receiving the info from the satellites is "Suspect at best" on the go.

Also the units from either service tend to have hardware/firmware issues(especially Sirius).

Not that an IPod can't/won't have issues, but their reliability seems to be better. Especially after the first batch was sold. The quality control of the products just seem better.

And at $249 you get alot more use than similiarly priced unit from either company(again, especially Sirius).

And I don't include the rebates as they are a pain in the ass to get back anyway.

So from a "pricepoint" standpoint, the Ipod, and similar types of units from similar companies sold for less, offer a TON more for people.

Even though a CD does sound better(way better IMHO)
I don't buy ANY songs from ITunes. I buy on CD most of what I like, and like most people I rip to MP3 to conserve space. I have the 30GB IPod, and can store around 7,500 songs - enough to play 24/7 for nearly 20 days without ever hearing the same song twice.

But that is MY preference - if someone cares about sound quality they can rip lossless music to the IPod - giving you CD quality at the cost of space. Still, a 30GB IPod can hold 42 CD's with no loss in quality.

The iPod can soon rival Satellite in terms of "live" content as well.

Imagine being able to dock your iPod to your computer every day and have it automatically download the latest "live" show, ready for you to listen to when you work out at the gym.

Sure the content is no longer live but it is "near live" and that is probably good enough. I personally would welcome this feature to record the Howard Stern show in the morning, download it to my iPod automatically, so I can listen to it in the afternoon. The next day it would automatically delete the previous day's show and record the latest one.

It's all about the separation between content and distribution. Satellite delivery is great for cars, but cumbersome for the home, and very unreliable for portable units. Within 10 years the airwaves will be full with 4G cellular, WiMax, and other means to distribute high bandwidth content much more effectively than line-of-sight satellite.

It is short sighted to view XM and Sirius as radio companies. The combined entity will be a content provider, competing with all other content for the consumer's attention.

The way wireless technology is growing leaps and bounds I think in 2-3 years Ipod type devices will be able to stream live content.

I think what is forgotten about the IPOD is its ability to store huge amounts of music in a small package. This offers a large amount of choices depending upon your listening mood. CD had the advantage over LPs because of their size and LPs were considered better recordings (there are those that still believe that an LP is a better recording than a CD). But CDs compact size and relative durability won us over. Now the IPOD offers the same and yes it is considered inferior in sound quality but superior in size and storability.

I find it interesting that AM/FM radio is still here, surviving nicely right along side the CD, the reason I think is that it is for all intensive purposes FREE. Now with Satellite radio the model they are using should be changed. In my opinion the service should be free and radios provided in all cars but the radios should be modified to provide scrolling banners as advertisements. Taking from my grandfather when he said that children should be seen but not heard, well advertising should be seen on the players but not heard.

Just a thought to keep sat radio alive. Try a different model of getting revenue. What do they have to lose? :D

The way wireless technology is growing leaps and bounds I think in 2-3 years Ipod type devices will be able to stream live content.
The bandwidth is not there yet to deliver live content in real time. Our infrastructure will not change fast enough for the 2-3 year time span. No, it will come in evolutional changes probably over the next decade.

Then why do I keep hearing about Wimax in cars in the near future. I admit I know very little about this, but if a car radio can pick up internet radio stations. Why couldn't a portable?

(there are those that still believe that an LP is a better recording than a CD)

The SQ on an LP was much better than a CD. But as you pointed out LP's had serious limitations. The got scratched easily, they were big, clumsy, etc. And the younger generations liked portable and easy to use devices. Something LP's never were, or would be.

The SQ on an LP was much better than a CD. But as you pointed out LP's had serious limitations. The got scratched easily, they were big, clumsy, etc. And the younger generations liked portable and easy to use devices. Something LP's never were, or would be.
Sound quality on an LP are often better than CD's, but NOT because LP's are a superior format. Most music is marketed via FM radio, and CD's have been mastered near their peak db level so they are as loud as possible when played on an FM station (humans perceive louder as better). In turn these CD's have very little dynamic range.

However, well mastered CD's are superior to their well mastered LP counterparts.

Then why do I keep hearing about Wimax in cars in the near future. I admit I know very little about this, but if a car radio can pick up internet radio stations. Why couldn't a portable?
That is for streaming point to multi-point which is like listening to a broadcast station. I was thinking individual selection where you select the content you wish to stream.

Then this Wimax will be just another in a long line of alternatives to sat radio.

Even if this merger goes through I don't know if sat radio, in it's current form, will be around in 3-5 years. There's so much competition out there, and it's only getting worse.

Article today on MSN Money:

Why Sirius is still doomed
\
Millions of people bought Sirius shares at $6 to $8 for their retirement accounts, and rode them down to $3.50, never losing faith in Stern. At this point, they need to face up to the fact that they're screwed. Stern made half a billion. They will make nothing. They can file SIRI stock certificates away under "S" for stupid. They blew it.


MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WONT BE ABLE TO RETIRE! STERN BANKRUPTS SOCIAL SECURITY!

i think you're in the minority here, satellite radio is first and foremost a music service, and is promoted as such. that said, i think given the option of listening to their own 10,000+ song library on the iPod OR music provided by satellite radio, a large percentage of the population will choose the former. it doesn't require a monthly subscription and one can hear whatever he/she wants instantly.
Hmmm...yeah...thats why Nascar signed with Sirus...lets see the NFL Network too, Yeah its definitely the minority, Do you even have Sat. radio?...I could also throw in the Playboy channel but I don't want to rub it in because it's all about the music right?

Hmmm...yeah...thats why Nascar signed with Sirus...lets see the NFL Network too, Yeah its definitely the minority . . .
Didn't Sirius sign Nascar and the NFL network. Not the other way around. Sirius sought them out and offered them more money than they had to broadcast Nascar and the NFL. More money than they had seems to be the problem with Sirius. Big Ideas but little wallet.

Didn't Sirius sign Nascar and the NFL network. Not the other way around. Sirius sought them out and offered them more money than they had to broadcast Nascar and the NFL. More money than they had seems to be the problem with Sirius. Big Ideas but little wallet.I agree, I was just pointing out that in my belief...People subscribe for the talk radio and special programming just as much or even more than just for the music format.

All the sports have been pretty much a failure on both services. Yes I know there are some of you out there who signed up for NFL, or NASCAR, or MLB. But not enough, not even close to enough....

Hmmm...yeah...thats why Nascar signed with Sirus...lets see the NFL Network too, Yeah its definitely the minority, Do you even have Sat. radio?...I could also throw in the Playboy channel but I don't want to rub it in because it's all about the music right?

since you asked, i've been an XM subscriber since 2004. i mostly listen to the talk channels, but a significant amount of music too.

as for nascar and the NFL, these big $$$$ signings were a foolish and short-sighted attempt to grab up as much content as possible, regardless of cost. sort of like the HS deal. in the race to offer the consumer as much as possible, they forgot that almost nobody listens to football games or nascar races. this content is delivered in a much more satisfying manner in other, more accessible ways. there might be *some* folks interested in this stuff on satellite radio, but not nearly enough to justify the cost of obtaining the content.

XM didn't do much better. baseball is arguably a better radio sport, but the interest level in it among current and potential subscribers isn't anywhere near high enough to offset the acquisition and operating costs. oprah? how many women rushed out to buy their XM radios after she got her own channel? clearly not enough, or these two companies wouldn't be in panic mode right now.

the merger may end up saving these guys if it goes through. maybe a better solution would be to change the business model, and maybe offer some content for free to draw in subscribers, come up with new ways of getting ad revenue, etc.
there's really no easy answers. :(

the merger may end up saving these guys if it goes through. maybe a better solution would be to change the business model, and maybe offer some content for free to draw in subscribers, come up with new ways of getting ad revenue, etc.
there's really no easy answers. :(
So true. What you may see is several companies spun off to mitigate the debt. One will hold the technology separate from the content and several more entities to hold the debt of the various content. For instance, NASCAR MLB, NFL, HS, Oprah would spin off as separate entities providing content for the sat service. Each content entity would hold their individual debts and pay the sat entity for services to transmit there content. With this model you get an ala carte of services and each can raise revenue independently and handle programming on their own. As a result we will see some services die and others change their outlook in order to live. Some services may end up being grouped together but then again maybe they shouldn't be allowed to group to preserve true capitalism and democratic process to previal. i.e. we vote for their existence with our dollars and subscription. Regardless of what content survives (that will change over time) the technology will remain and be supported (like a utility company) by the providers of content and investors.

With this model it is a good idea to merge the sat companies (as utilities do now) creating a monopoly for the sat technology. The content companies are on their own for raising revenue to support their service and handle their own debt. The drawback may very well be the cost of the service. But you control that by buying what you want. If you don't want Stern or NFL you don't pay for it.

Interesting way of looking at the merger. The split as you describe reminds me of the original DirecTV/USSB deal. DirectTV handled all the normal channels and USSB had all the premium channels. This deal worked out well at the beginning and allowed for a lower entry point for subscribers. Doing this with Sirius/XM would be a little tougher and more than likely raise rates but may be worth it.

In the Satellite vs. iPod debate, what everyone forgets is that the superior technology does not always win (Laserdisc anyone?) It really comes down to marketing and I think Apple has it in that area.

I have had "commercial free digital music" in one form or another since 1992. Whether it was Digital Cable Radio, DMX or Music Choice, I haven't been without this kind of music since then. This is why satellite radio will always have the top spot in my book:
I'm able to listen to my favorite style of music at the time I want to, whatever I'm in the mood for.
I can also explore a genre of music or talk that might not be known to me. I have found space music, cajun, and other ecclectic styles I had no idea existed.
I don't have to pay for a library of music.
Experts program the music so I don't have to.

We should all hope this merger works out...

In the Satellite vs. iPod debate, what everyone forgets is that the superior technology does not always win (Laserdisc anyone?) It really comes down to marketing and I think Apple has it in that area.

I have had "commercial free digital music" in one form or another since 1992. Whether it was Digital Cable Radio, DMX or Music Choice, I haven't been without this kind of music since then. This is why satellite radio will always have the top spot in my book:
I'm able to listen to my favorite style of music at the time I want to, whatever I'm in the mood for.
I can also explore a genre of music or talk that might not be known to me. I have found space music, cajun, and other ecclectic styles I had no idea existed.
I don't have to pay for a library of music.
Experts program the music so I don't have to.

We should all hope this merger works out...
I don't follow your post. Are you saying Satellite is superior quality to lossless FLAC on an IPod? Considering XM & Sirius are at best FM quality I doubt you are saying that. So are you saying 200 channels is better than the 10 free (and commercial free) HD FM channels I can get? But that's cables argument for not giving us HD programming - so they can give us 200 stations of crap.

I think what you're saying is you want someone to help you find new music and satellite fills that need. I'll just use Amazon to find those music gems and get them in lossless format, because quality trumps everything (unless I'm jogging or hiking).

because quality trumps everything (unless I'm jogging or hiking).

So when you're jogging or hiking convenience trumps out. Which is the whole point. Ipods, etc. are easy to use, cheap, much more portable then sat radio, in other words they are more convenient. ;)

So when you're jogging or hiking convenience trumps out. Which is the whole point. Ipods, etc. are easy to use, cheap, much more portable then sat radio, in other words they are more convenient. ;)
Which is why I have an IPod. But that's not why I responded to ritzo - he specified that Satellite was of higher quality than the IPod - which I disagree with. I think the IPod is more convenient and of higher quality.

Which is why I have an IPod. But that's not why I responded to ritzo - he specified that Satellite was of higher quality than the IPod - which I disagree with. I think the IPod is more convenient and of higher quality.


SQ,yes the Ipod is higher quality, I agree with you on that.

Overall quality? I think sat radios, just because they are more of a car device so they have to take abuse, they're probably made better and more durable than an Ipod.

I have had my XM for about six months, and wish I had gotten it a lot earlier. Yes, I also have my iPod playing in the car, but with news, traffic (Atlanta), golf, and the other channels I have pre-set, you can't beat it. On trips from my house in Ga to my parents' in Virginia, there are several long stretches where AM and FM do not come in well.

The only place I cannot get reception (other than in a parking deck, that is) is when I stop by the traffic light next to the First Baptist Church, where I guess the steeple blocks the sat.

On trips from my house in Ga to my parents' in Virginia, there are several long stretches where AM and FM do not come in well.
Interesting, I travel up and down the eastern seaboard from New York to Florida and there are almost no areas where I can't get FM reception. If I am losing reception or am unhappy with the sound quality I set the genre and hit seek and my radio finds a radio station playing what I feel like listening to at the time. Even with AM, no problem. With Syndicated radio stations I sometimes even get the same show I was just listening to previously. I still even pop in CD's at my leisure.

What I am saying is that sat radio has found out that the Unlimited market they thought they had is really quite small and will be getting smaller with the onset of better technologies. Improvement with AM/FM radios, more memory for IPODS and better capability to download PODcasts.

Merger is there only alternative to compete but they need to find other revenue streams because if they raise the rates at all for subscribers they will become a welfare project for the government.

[QUOTE=David Guill]Interesting, I travel up and down the eastern seaboard from New York to Florida and there are almost no areas where I can't get FM Even with AM, no problem. With Syndicated radio stations I sometimes even get the same show I was just listening to previously.
What I am saying is that sat radio has found out that the Unlimited market they thought they had is really quite small and will be getting smaller with the onset of better technologies. Improvement with AM/FM radios, more memory for IPODS and better capability to download PODcasts.

Well I travel in the same way but my stop is in Va. Beach...So when was this all about the music? I can't recall all the times I was driving back on a Sunday and could one button access any NFL game I want to hear...who wants AM signal loss and distortion, after the game I'd tune in MSNBC,FOX, or any other format that deemed entertaining, even the Weather Channel saved me on I-95 numerous times...It's all about the programming and if the price goes up I'll more than likely pay the fee. Long live Sat. Radio...MORE PROGRAMMING...LESS COMERCIALS

...So when was this all about the music?
All I am saying is that the consumer base is much smaller than anticipated. It was previously thought that sat radio would be very large. This just is not the case. As a result the revenue stream will not be that great even for the merger so they have to seek revenue from other sources.

i think you're in the minority here, satellite radio is first and foremost a music service, and is promoted as such. that said, i think given the option of listening to their own 10,000+ song library on the iPod OR music provided by satellite radio, a large percentage of the population will choose the former. it doesn't require a monthly subscription and one can hear whatever he/she wants instantly.

How many people have a 10,000 song library? That's like 833 CD's (assuming 12 songs per CD). That's a lot of pirating or, heaven forbid, actual spending of cash. :rolleyes:

The big difference though is that Satellite Radio allows me to listen to stuff I won't hear on FM or don't have in my collection. I find myself listening to Cinemagic, Christian Pop, French Canadian Music, Techno Dance, New Wave, and many other music styles that I would never have been exposed to without XM.

Sorry - bad pun. I have XM, and like to listen to the chatter and other stuff that comes with the music - lik "seventies' slang' etc., plus live sports that you do not get elsewhere. If I want to listen to a CD, I'l pop it in instead.

The area that I have trouble getting good solid music stations is in the never-land between NC and VA on I77 where you are climbing up the mountains. It is too far from Charlotte, and you can't get the Roanoke stations until you are almost to the I77-I81 interchange.

Oh, for the days of sitting in my bedroom in SW Va, listening to WCFL and WLS, when the Chicago mega-stations could put out enough power to cover half the country!

The big difference though is that Satellite Radio allows me to listen to stuff I won't hear on FM or don't have in my collection. I find myself listening to Cinemagic, Christian Pop, French Canadian Music, Techno Dance, New Wave, and many other music styles that I would never have been exposed to without XM.
hey, i agree with you, that is why i love XM. its just too bad that there's not enough people out there like us to support two (or maybe even one) satellite radio companies, given the current business model. that damn iPod sure seems to be doing OK, though. you know what one of the top accesories for that thing is??? an FM modulator that allows one to listen to it in his/her vehicle. go figure. :rolleyes:

How many people have a 10,000 song library? That's like 833 CD's (assuming 12 songs per CD). That's a lot of pirating or, heaven forbid, actual spending of cash. :rolleyes:
i do. between my wife and i, we had over 500 CD's that i ripped to MP3 over the course of a month. most of my friends did the same thing.

Damn, you're on to us.:)

LMAO, yeah, u got us.

Not sure if Stern Doomed sirius,

but he sure did knock terrestrial radio on it's ass....

I think the value of the ipod is that I can take it where sat radio can't go. Podcasts have become a HUGE part of my in office experience since I can let them play in the background. The only way to get sat radio the same way is if they let me download a show in the morning. It would be very cool if they allowed this, even worth a small premium. It would especially help for stuff like Bloody Roots and Dee Snyders show, I'm not listening to radio in the evenings.

The only way to get sat radio the same way is if they let me download a show in the morning. It would be very cool if they allowed this, even worth a small premium. It would especially help for stuff like Bloody Roots and Dee Snyders show, I'm not listening to radio in the evenings.

A bunch of XM receivers do allow you to do this. The first generation "XM2Go" receivers (http://www.myradiostore.com/xm-radio-receivers/myfi-sa10113.html) could keep an store an average of 5 hours of content (it's more like 7 hours of talk radio).

The second generation XM2Go receivers have two options. Some allow a combination of 50 hours of satellite and/or mp3 content to be stored (http://www.myradiostore.com/xm-radio-receivers/pioneer-inno-xm-radio-mp3.html) and others allow a combination of 25 hours of satellite and/or mp3 content to be stored (http://www.myradiostore.com/xm-radio-receivers/samsung-nexus-xm-radio-mp3-napster.html) for a lower price.

Unlike a DVR, there is no additional charge for using these receivers.