or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › XM and Sirius Satellite Radio › XM Sirius Fee Increase
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

XM Sirius Fee Increase - Page 2

post #31 of 43
I started out with 2 radios, and eventually wound up with 6 and some on the family plan. after the price increase I was down to 4 radios. After this, I will not renew when the time comes around again. My gripe???? The jazz channels just repete the same artists over & over. The quality is not as good, the DJ has to open her mouth, (which is why I don't listen to FM) and I loose signal on & off while driving. I found sky.fm on the internet a better choice. Although you cannot take it with you, you hear new artists & if I like them, i buy the single & put it on the I-pod. So, this time & will retire my XM radios for good. So long XM.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by grgeiger View Post

But if it weren't for radio outlets like Sirius giving artists exposure the sales would dry up.

What Sirius ought to do is go commercial.. You want your artist played on our stations.. Buy a 3 or 4 minute commercial and play the song as a paid advertisement. A few bucks might not seem like a lot.. but it is a 20% increase well beyond the current rate of inflation. I am thinking of just getting A slacker Radio.. Or record non commercial streams of my favorite format and inserting them in my MP3 player.

Just a note... I have not heard new artists on the Jazz channel for a long,long,long time!
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbie845 View Post

Because without a merger, or a buyout by DirecTV, Mircosoft, someone like that, neither company would have survived and there would be no satellite radio.

The companies and the service are two different things. Without a merger, the *companies* would have gone broke. But that doesn't mean the service would end. After they stiffed their bondholders, made the stock worthless, etc. there was a money making service to be had.
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmoneous View Post

The companies and the service are two different things. Without a merger, the *companies* would have gone broke. But that doesn't mean the service would end. After they stiffed their bondholders, made the stock worthless, etc. there was a money making service to be had.

Yes, I have said that about 12 times here. Bankruptcy does NOT mean the companies would have had to close their doors, BUT it doesn't mean salvation either.

I think in it's current form, or if their was still 2 companies in their current forms there's no way they could have made money. A strip down, ad driven form, maybe there is money to be made.

But even if they went bankrupt and cleared their books, without a complete change of business philosophy,tactics and a HUGE slimming down, I don't see how they could have made a profit. There's too much competition out there now..Sirius, XM or SXM in it's current form(s) is at a huge disadvantage.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmoneous View Post

The companies and the service are two different things. Without a merger, the *companies* would have gone broke. But that doesn't mean the service would end. After they stiffed their bondholders, made the stock worthless, etc. there was a money making service to be had.

I'm not sure I buy this. About 5 years ago we heard the same thing about the Dish Network and DirecTV merger. They'd both cease to exists if they weren't allowed to merge.

I think had they not merged one or both may have gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and they both would have changed their ways (not more golden deals for people like Stern as an example) and they may have each been bought up by DirecTV and Dish Network (it'd kind of make sense).

They basically both wanted to merge and to do so had to paint the bleakest of pictures.
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zion21 View Post

I agree, I guess they arnt trying to profit off of new customers but instead want to screw their existing ones. That never works out. [img]https://********************/smile12.gif[/img]

What a horrible blunder. They lose customers so they have to charge more... which causes them to lose more customers. Sounds like the worst kind of downward spiral a business could conjure up.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorgouge View Post

Pretty hilarious, considering they are losing subscriptions as it is.

They are laughing all the way to the bank. Figure raising rates 12%, and then figure losing 5% of your subscribers because of it. Do the math, and instead of grossing $3.6 billion a year in subscription fees alone, they will gross a cool extra $230 mil every year on top of that. Hilarious indeed.
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeKaye07 View Post

...Lucky folks who have lifetime subs won't EVER have to pay the fee. ...

I am a member of that club, but am not resting easy. The lifetime sub fee was to get the channels, and does not imply that it covers the royalty fee, which is something ON TOP of the subscription fee. It wouldn't surprise me to be charged monthly just for that, on top of my lifetime subscription. Of course if they have the nerve to do that, there's gonna be a revolution.

If push came to shove, they could shut off my music channels altogether. I signed for Howard and broke even at the 2.6 year mark, meaning I'm playing with the house's money.

I also would not be surprised to see Howard cease all music (a common Stern technique for returning from commercials is to play music just after the commercials for a minute or two and fade it out under Howard) because they may start internally billing his channels for royalties on it.

Crazier $#!+ has happened.
post #39 of 43
Why not have a seperate subscription service for just music or just talk channels? Oh that would require a good business model which SiriusXM does not have. Poorly run from top to bottom IMO.
post #40 of 43
Some radios allow "ala carte" programming allowing selection ofwhat you want but I believe you need a compatible radio to get it. not sure how it works though...
post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieva View Post

Why not have a seperate subscription service for just music or just talk channels? Oh that would require a good business model which SiriusXM does not have. Poorly run from top to bottom IMO.

Well, yeah they have that..

XM has a 'Mostly' music plan and a 'News, Talk n Sport's' plan...

$9.99 for each.
post #42 of 43
I want to cancel so bad. I listen to a lot more internet radio however when I went to my aunts house I have no internet and all I have is the cruddy Sirius version of XM. By the end of the week I wanted to throw my Inno out the window. The same stinking songs over and over again. The worst is the 80's channel. Last year when I went up I was able to listen to it for hours now I can't even listen to it for 10 minutes without major burnout from the same songs over and over again.

My second radio is now over $9. They now charge extra for the internet streams even though sites like Trance.fm, Di.fm blow away stations like Area. And on the topic of Area they play the same mixshows over and over again too.

My uncle loves his southern gospel but I finally want to pull the plug and I will tell him that he wants to keep is gospel which I think soon will be axed anyway for some stupid one artist rock channel then he will have to pay for it himself. I ended up by the end of the week listing to my iPod more since I can get many free Trance shows on iTunes as podcasts.
post #43 of 43
my friends dad like's the 40 channel. he's very old and has age-related mental issues.
when the 40s channels is on, he is transformed/calmed.
so my friend left his sirius boombox with him - 40s channel can be turned on any time.
that seems worth $2 extra monthly music fee for this case, eh?

IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT'S OVER!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: XM and Sirius Satellite Radio
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › XM and Sirius Satellite Radio › XM Sirius Fee Increase