Maybe Sirius AND XM are both fucked

[Kingo Gondo]

Would that be something?

A merger then might--or might not--make sense. Instead of having each other
as competitors, the true battle might be seen as satellite radio versus:

Terrestrial radio

Podcasting

Music-by-phone delivery, or even other programming by phone technologies
around the corner.

I think the first one of them that gets to market with a killer
phone/satellite radio/mp3 player, partnered with a solid cellular provider
capable of delivering the goods (i.e. not Cingular) wins--if they both make
it that long.

[Kim Cole]

Kingo Gondo wrote:
> Would that be something?
>
> A merger then might--or might not--make sense. Instead of having each other
> as competitors, the true battle might be seen as satellite radio versus:
>
> Terrestrial radio
>
> Podcasting
>
> Music-by-phone delivery, or even other programming by phone technologies
> around the corner.
>
> I think the first one of them that gets to market with a killer
> phone/satellite radio/mp3 player, partnered with a solid cellular provider
> capable of delivering the goods (i.e. not Cingular) wins--if they both make
> it that long.

XM AND SIRIUS ARE FUCKED? WHAT DO YOU CALL SPENDING MILLIONS FOR A BIG
NOSE JEW AND A BIG ASS NIGGER?

[NoDownTime@gmail.com]

> I think the first one of them that gets to market with a killer
> phone/satellite radio/mp3 player, partnered with a solid cellular provider
> capable of delivering the goods (i.e. not Cingular) wins--if they both make
> it that long.

I wish it were that simple, but it isn't.

XM will certainly be the first, as they've been the first to do
everything else and their tech lead just keeps growing.

I think the big issue is power consumption.

The other problem is that the cellphone companies are dillusional in
that they think they're going to do music on the cellphone network,
which they don't have sufficient bandwidth for. So, they're not in the
mood to do much will sat radio.

XM delivers the killer receivers next month though, with the Helix &
Inno.

[Rich]

>>>XM will certainly be the first, as they've been the first to do everything else

Where is that mp3/satrad neXus? Sirius has had on the market for
months and months and by the way you can get Sirius on Sprint. Hello
Frontmed....hello?

[{er}]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:28:34 GMT, "Kingo Gondo"
<kingo_nospam_gondo@gmail.org> wrote:

>Would that be something?
>
>A merger then might--or might not--make sense. Instead of having each other
>as competitors, the true battle might be seen as satellite radio versus:
>
>Terrestrial radio
>
>Podcasting
>
>Music-by-phone delivery, or even other programming by phone technologies
>around the corner.
>
>I think the first one of them that gets to market with a killer
>phone/satellite radio/mp3 player, partnered with a solid cellular provider
>capable of delivering the goods (i.e. not Cingular) wins--if they both make
>it that long.

A merge became inevitable after SIRIUS unloaded the farm on Howard
Stern. The two companies must merge or spend themselves out of
existence in order to be viable.

I don't blame SIRIUS. They were headed towards a worse fate without
Stern. But SIRI brought XM down with them when they signed him.

--SS

[Rich]

>>>But SIRI brought XM down with them when they signed him.

XM brought down XM when they tried to counter by giving away products
and services. Ergo, roberts quits the board of directors. Just what
did XM get for all the MA spent on countering Stern? Wouldn't have
been cheaper to sign him?

[Chuck Babbage]

>
> XM brought down XM when they tried to counter by giving away products
> and services. Ergo, roberts quits the board of directors. Just what
> did XM get for all the MA spent on countering Stern? Wouldn't have
> been cheaper to sign him?


Sirius STILL lost more money than either company ever has, either in a
single quarter or on a single year. XM claimed nearly half the retail share
during this $750 Million, One-Quarter-Publicity-Stunt, at a cost of maybe
$70 million. Sirius hasn't even started expensing this ordeal yet and XM is
done with it, and has most of its market share back already.

Cheaper to Sign Stern? You're nuts. Sirius paid 3/4 of a billion dollars
for him, essentially breaking their own bank, insuring they will be behind
in content for years to come. While XM is out acquiring premium content
[now that it has started to matter] Sirius is stuck with Stern, a one-hit
wonder.

There is only one CEO goofy enough to have paid what Sirius paid for Stern,
and he was fired by Sirius within 60 days of having done so. That ought to
tell you something, I guess.

[Rich]

>>>was fired by Sirius within 60 days

Another Frontmed, DavidRay, NoDownTime, Chuck Babbage, Don Knuth,
the_legbreaker lie. I hope someday I get fired like Joe.

http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=BioAsset&cid=1036178441185

[Chuck Babbage]

Joe hasn't been seen or heard from since CES in Jan'05. Other than when he
makes his monthly dump of 600,000 Sirius shares.

Joe ought to be ashamed to claim those shares with the mess he left for Mel
Karmizan to clean up.

> Another Frontmed, DavidRay, NoDownTime, Chuck Babbage, Don Knuth,
> the_legbreaker lie. I hope someday I get fired like Joe.
>
>
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=BioAsset&cid=1036178441185
>

[Rich]

>>>Joe hasn't been seen or heard from since CES in Jan'05.

Joe does not need to go on naional TV to lay down cover so Mel can do
insider selling, Mel is doing insider BUYING.

[Dave Zass]

> While XM is out acquiring premium content
> [now that it has started to matter] Sirius is stuck with Stern, a one-hit
> wonder.

If I thought you had a brain, I'd ask you to explain. For entertainment
purposes, of course.

[Admiral Grace Murray Hopper]

>
> If I thought you had a brain, I'd ask you to explain. For entertainment
> purposes, of course.


If I thought you had a brain, I'd explain it to you.

Not once have you made a substantive post in this newgroup. Not one.

The Stern Effect is over. Which is the reason Sirius hasn't been able to
squeeze out another 500K subs in the 40 or so days since he went on the air.

[Dave Zass]

> Not once have you made a substantive post in this newgroup. Not one.

Nor have you, sir.

I have, however, posted under the same name since day one. And I have mad a
substantive post by alerting others to your factual bias. You post BS which
is nothing but your own stock pumping opinions. I guess that's your
calling here. I simply point out the fact that your "facts" are either
false, fabrications, or opinions.

You make my job here rather easy.

Please, please tell me what the people want.

[Admiral Grace Murray Hopper]

> > Not once have you made a substantive post in this newgroup. Not one.
>
> Nor have you, sir.
>

I think most of my posts are supported by reasonable argument. Yours have
been supported by personal attacks and nothing more.

Anytime you would like to discuss these two businesses or services on
issues, I'll be glad to do it.

However, you and other Siriots on this thread are just like you are on
Yahoo -- full of ---- and unable to make a cogent argument to support your
statements. When you can't, you make something up.

> I have, however, posted under the same name since day one.

I did for a long time. Now, I choose to let each post stand on its own.
Why in hell would you care what alias I use? It should be totally
unimportant to you, unless you are interested in making personal attacks
rather than arguing on legitimate issues. If you don't want to discuss the
subject, there is no reason for you to be here, other than to attack me
personally, which is all you have done.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=alt.radio.satellite&qt_s=Search&enc_author=BdX0KhkAAABsTD2vU_IWpCu4azTMxekLe9fuTZLWB4BzcK1QhDozJw


> And I have mad a
> substantive post by alerting others to your factual bias. You post BS
which
> is nothing but your own stock pumping opinions.

You cannot point to a post of mine that isn't either (a) clearly a statement
of my opinion (which is permitted) or (b) supportable by facts.


> I
> guess that's your
> calling here. I simply point out the fact that your "facts" are either
> false, fabrications, or opinions.

Which of my "facts" are false, fabrications? Opinions, I believe, are
permitted -- but any opinion I've stated I'll be glad to support with facts
if you will do me the courtesy of refuting it with facts rather than
personal attacks.

> You make my job here rather easy.

Most jobs are "easy" if you don't know the subject matter well enough to
know how badly you are screwing them up.