Sirius Getting More Repeaters

[ThirdNormalForm]

It seems the Sirius satellite signal isn't quite so pristine as we've been
told... should help the lousy reception prevalent in so many areas.

From the 10K

Terrestrial Repeaters. In some areas with high concentrations of tall
buildings, such as urban centers, and in tunnels, signals from our
satellites may be blocked and reception of our satellite signal can be
adversely affected. In many of these areas, we have deployed terrestrial
repeaters to supplement our satellite coverage. To date, we have deployed
140 terrestrial repeaters in 95 urban areas. We expect to deploy a
significant number of additional terrestrial repeaters in 2006.
Future increases in satellite and transmission expenses will primarily be
attributable to the addition of new terrestrial repeaters and maintenance
costs of existing terrestrial repeaters. We expect to deploy a significant
number of additional terrestrial repeaters in 2006. Such expenses may also
increase in future periods if we decide to reinstate our in-orbit satellite
insurance or launch new satellites.

[ThirdNormalForm]

Apparently, there is more to it than just getting more repeaters -- I just
saw this posted somewhere else.

It seems the implementation of Hierarchical Modulation has been delayed.
Perhaps the repeaters are necessary, not for portables, but for H/M. So,
when do we get video & other promised services?

We continually monitor our existing infrastructure and regularly evaluate
improvements in technology. We plan to implement a technology within our
existing system that will initially increase our network capacity by
approximately 25%. This technology, known as hierarchical modulation, will
allow us to offer additional audio channels, as well as advanced services
such as data and video, without noticeably affecting our broadcasts. This
increase in network capacity will be available through new SIRIUS radios and
will not be available to SIRIUS radios sold prior to the implementation of
this technology. We expect to begin offering services using this technology
in 2007.

[David]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:43:26 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>Apparently, there is more to it than just getting more repeaters -- I just
>saw this posted somewhere else.
>
>It seems the implementation of Hierarchical Modulation has been delayed.
>Perhaps the repeaters are necessary, not for portables, but for H/M. So,
>when do we get video & other promised services?
>
>We continually monitor our existing infrastructure and regularly evaluate
>improvements in technology. We plan to implement a technology within our
>existing system that will initially increase our network capacity by
>approximately 25%. This technology, known as hierarchical modulation, will
>allow us to offer additional audio channels, as well as advanced services
>such as data and video, without noticeably affecting our broadcasts. This
>increase in network capacity will be available through new SIRIUS radios and
>will not be available to SIRIUS radios sold prior to the implementation of
>this technology. We expect to begin offering services using this technology
>in 2007.
>
>
You are such a simp.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> Apparently, there is more to it than just getting more repeaters -- I just
> saw this posted somewhere else.
>
> It seems the implementation of Hierarchical Modulation has been delayed.
> Perhaps the repeaters are necessary, not for portables, but for H/M. So,
> when do we get video & other promised services?

If this was the case, wouldn't H/M be only available from those
"upgraded" repeaters and not from the satellite and other repeaters?
Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> It seems the Sirius satellite signal isn't quite so pristine as we've been
> told... should help the lousy reception prevalent in so many areas.

So Frontmed, what do you call it when XM adds repeaters? I thought XM's
signal was superior *cough*. It's nice to see Sirius improving their
coverage in metro areas, where there is continual urban expansion,
structures being built, etc. Got to keep up with the times. What I
find funny is that you don't see Sirius putting up repeaters along
highway corridors. They simply don't need them. However XM is doing
just that, and if you're unlucky enough to travel on a road that is not
blessed by such a crutch, then that superior signal just might not sound
so superior any more. Perhaps XM should start handing out coverage maps
like the cell phone carriers do, to show their lovely terrestrial radio
network they've got going. Call the shaded areas enhanced MyFi
reception zones where you don't have to rely on a satellite perched just
above the horizon. Heck, they could add another colour too for WCS band
coverage areas where they can add a channel or two of video! Woooooo!

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> If this was the case, wouldn't H/M be only available from those
> "upgraded" repeaters and not from the satellite and other repeaters?
> Doesn't make much sense to me.

What happens to legacy receivers when you implement H/M if the signal isn't
strong enough? The H/M signal just becomes noise to those receivers, does
it not?

We already know that Sirius has problems with its network in many, many
locations.

Could be they just want to fill in gaps to accommodate wearables. But it
could certainly be that they are seeing some problems with the rollout of
H/M as well.

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> So Frontmed, what do you call it when XM adds repeaters? I thought XM's
> signal was superior *cough*. It's nice to see Sirius improving their
> coverage in metro areas, where there is continual urban expansion,
> structures being built, etc. Got to keep up with the times. What I
> find funny is that you don't see Sirius putting up repeaters along
> highway corridors.

I don't know where they're putting them. But you have argued that the need
for repeaters is somehow indicative of an inferior satellite infrastructure.
So, what does this say?

> They simply don't need them. However XM is doing
> just that, and if you're unlucky enough to travel on a road that is not
> blessed by such a crutch, then that superior signal just might not sound
> so superior any more. Perhaps XM should start handing out coverage maps
> like the cell phone carriers do, to show their lovely terrestrial radio
> network they've got going.

This is not an accurate characterization. XM's coverage is clearly far
superior to SIRI's -- you don't find XM users posting here about reception
issues, but you do find SIrius users here routinely with these problems. In
spite of the fact XM has twice the number of subscribers.

> Call the shaded areas enhanced MyFi
> reception zones where you don't have to rely on a satellite perched just
> above the horizon. Heck, they could add another colour too for WCS band
> coverage areas where they can add a channel or two of video! Woooooo!

XM showed 10 channels of excellent video running on WCS bandwidth at CES.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>If this was the case, wouldn't H/M be only available from those
>>"upgraded" repeaters and not from the satellite and other repeaters?
>>Doesn't make much sense to me.
>
>
> What happens to legacy receivers when you implement H/M if the signal isn't
> strong enough? The H/M signal just becomes noise to those receivers, does
> it not?

This rarely happens. Why? Because the biggest issues with microwaves
are obstructions. If we were talking about a VHF signal or even signals
as high as 700MHz I'd say you have a good point being that in those
cases you'd have more instances of areas with low C/N ratios due to the
fact that you could get away with fewer transmitters at lower
frequencies. However, that's not the case here. Sirius and XM have
repeaters to overcome obstructions. In XM's case, those obstructions
could be natural or human made. These obstructions could make an
otherwise strong signal disappear to nothing because microwaves don't
penetrate objects, they bounce off of them. So rarely do you find a
case where the signal is just weak, the case is usually the signal isn't
there at all. Besides, the problem would be with the HM capable
receivers receiving the HM signal needing more signal, but that point is
moot.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>So Frontmed, what do you call it when XM adds repeaters? I thought XM's
>>signal was superior *cough*. It's nice to see Sirius improving their
>>coverage in metro areas, where there is continual urban expansion,
>>structures being built, etc. Got to keep up with the times. What I
>>find funny is that you don't see Sirius putting up repeaters along
>>highway corridors.
>
>
> I don't know where they're putting them. But you have argued that the need
> for repeaters is somehow indicative of an inferior satellite infrastructure.
> So, what does this say?

I'd wager that they're not going along highway corridors. I've argued
that the excessive reliance on repeaters implies an inferior satellite
infrastructure, particularly the reliance on repeaters to achieve
coverage in areas which are not impeded from the signal by human
intervention. It takes a pretty tall building to block Sirius, and
tunnels and parking garages will effectively block both Sirius and XM
without a repeater. Luckily, you won't run into very tall buildings
outside of large cities, nor will you generally find parking garages.
However, you will find medium height buildings in smaller cities/towns
which weren't blessed by an XM repeater. Worse yet are those hills and
mountains, or even transport trucks on the highway that are capable of
blocking a low lying XM signal.

>>They simply don't need them. However XM is doing
>>just that, and if you're unlucky enough to travel on a road that is not
>>blessed by such a crutch, then that superior signal just might not sound
>>so superior any more. Perhaps XM should start handing out coverage maps
>>like the cell phone carriers do, to show their lovely terrestrial radio
>>network they've got going.
>
> This is not an accurate characterization. XM's coverage is clearly far
> superior to SIRI's -- you don't find XM users posting here about reception
> issues, but you do find SIrius users here routinely with these problems. In
> spite of the fact XM has twice the number of subscribers.

I've commented on this before but you failed to respond to my reply back
then. I'll repost what I said to you on Nov. 17, 2005:

"I can't really speak for too many other public forums where both Sirius
and XM are accepted discussion, but for this group, it seems that Sirius
in general is discussed more here than XM. I never intended it to be
that way. In the beginning, I took great care into not focusing too
much on one provider over another when starting threads here. I wanted
to be sure I could give the best equal opportunity to fans of any
service or type of satellite radio to join in and respond. While we
started off with discussion of XM and Sirius along with FTA satellite
and Astra FTA satrad services as well as mention of SDARS in Japan, the
FTA traffic slowly disappeared and the Sirius and XM traffic grew.
According to google groups, XM results in 8,460 hits in this group and
Sirius results in 13,900. It seems that Sirius is discussed here more
than XM. I know, that's hardly a thorough statistical analysis of
discussion in this NG, but for a service that has a fraction of the
subscribers of XM, it is somewhat suprising that Sirius is discussed
here more often, or at least mentioned more often than XM. Another
thing I tried searching on in alt.radio.satellite was Sirius Reception
and XM reception. Sirius Reception hit 254 times and XM Reception hit
295 times. What does this mean? I don't know; probably nothing,
possibly everything."

>>Call the shaded areas enhanced MyFi
>>reception zones where you don't have to rely on a satellite perched just
>>above the horizon. Heck, they could add another colour too for WCS band
>>coverage areas where they can add a channel or two of video! Woooooo!
>
>
> XM showed 10 channels of excellent video running on WCS bandwidth at CES.

Very good. I'm sure the people who will be in those city centres where
the bandwidth will actually be available and receivable will appreciate
the 10 extra channels in addition to the free ones they'll be likely to
receive from other terrestrial sources likely with better coverage, i.e.
Broadcast TV and Broadcast HDTV!

[Dr. Droo]

XM can call the WCS areas an 'enhanced services area', like the
cellular carriers do that have 3G services.

I was all over ME NH MA and RI this weekend, as well as throughout
interior Boston and had no coverage issues until I hit the North
Station garage. Since it's underground, no cell phones work there
either until you come up to the ground level. Boston metro has
repeaters but the rest of the regions I speak of don't.

When I went to VT a few weeks back I had no coverage issues either.

I was merely driving along listening as I always do, as does ~90% of
XM's customers.

--D

[Dr. Droo]

>So rarely do you find a case where the signal is just weak
>, the case is usually the signal isn't there at all.

You got it.

This is the part where Frontmed says it is difficult to plan for dead
zones because Sirius's sats are in constant motion.

--D

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> This is the part where Frontmed says it is difficult to plan for dead
> zones because Sirius's sats are in constant motion.
>

Well, that is a fact. If you look at the posts here about reception
issues --

a) Almost all are about SIRIUS, not XM, and

b) Some will describe the problem with SIRI's inferior choice of orbit, and

c) Others will describe an "obstruction" alright, something as simple as the
roof of their house.

While the "roof" is technically an obstruction, seldom does it cause a
problem for XM listeners. Because XM is able to deliver enough power from
its satellites to avoid the problem. SIRI's generally weaker satellites
can't penetrate even the least obstructive of materials.

That's a documented fact, in case you are confusing it as "opinion".

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> I've commented on this before but you failed to respond to my reply back
> then. I'll repost what I said to you on Nov. 17, 2005:
>

I'm not sure what the point of the post is. But you should remember that
Sirius has 900,000+ retail shareholders, while XM has only 20,000 or
thereabouts. Sirius has attracted these shareholders because the stock is
"cheap" (in the $5 range), which inexperience retail shareholders perceive
to be more likely to yield a good return. Obviously flawed logic, but
that's what they think. And that accounts for more intense interest in
Sirius in forums like this one.


> Very good. I'm sure the people who will be in those city centres where
> the bandwidth will actually be available and receivable will appreciate
> the 10 extra channels in addition to the free ones they'll be likely to
> receive from other terrestrial sources likely with better coverage, i.e.
> Broadcast TV and Broadcast HDTV!

LOL. Whatever. Video was a big deal when Sirius thought they could do a
couple of channels of cartoons. Now that XM has, once again, trounced them
with better technology, it isn't important. But XM keeps on rolling.

[David]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:00:57 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>
>We already know that Sirius has problems with its network in many, many
>locations.
Fuck you.

[David]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:11:52 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>XM showed 10 channels of excellent video running on WCS bandwidth at CES.
>
>
Prove it.

[Bingo_17]

"ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:XeGTf.48914$F_3.32725@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >
>> This is the part where Frontmed says it is difficult to plan for dead
>> zones because Sirius's sats are in constant motion.
>>
>
> Well, that is a fact. If you look at the posts here about reception
> issues --
>
> a) Almost all are about SIRIUS, not XM, and
>
> b) Some will describe the problem with SIRI's inferior choice of orbit,
> and
>
> c) Others will describe an "obstruction" alright, something as simple as
> the
> roof of their house.
>
> While the "roof" is technically an obstruction, seldom does it cause a
> problem for XM listeners. Because XM is able to deliver enough power from
> its satellites to avoid the problem. SIRI's generally weaker satellites
> can't penetrate even the least obstructive of materials.
>
> That's a documented fact, in case you are confusing it as "opinion".
>
>

Bull----. My house has a southwestern style concrete tile roof on tar
paper felt 3/4" sheating 12" of fiberglass and painted sheetrock. Sirius
signal comes through loud and clear in my house.

My statement is fact. not my opinion.

[ThirdNormalForm]

My, the scumbags really come out when you start telling it like it is around
here....

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:9gcu125l737pi5abg2lonqlc6353ppg5ah@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:00:57 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >We already know that Sirius has problems with its network in many, many
> >locations.
> Fuck you.
>

[David]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:18:10 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>My, the scumbags really come out when you start telling it like it is around
>here....
>
Fuck you and your Mama, Mr. Many Many.

You XMbeciles have been harping on the fact that Sirius satellites
move* for 4 years now, and your silly talking point has never gotten
any traction.

Sure, a Sirius antenna in the home has to be more carefully situated,
but that doesn't seem to bother anyone but you.

Odd that XM's new ''Hey, who pissed all over my speakers?'' air sound
doesn't bother you.

*relative to a fixed location on Earth.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>I've commented on this before but you failed to respond to my reply back
>>then. I'll repost what I said to you on Nov. 17, 2005:
>>
> I'm not sure what the point of the post is. But you should remember that
> Sirius has 900,000+ retail shareholders, while XM has only 20,000 or
> thereabouts. Sirius has attracted these shareholders because the stock is
> "cheap" (in the $5 range), which inexperience retail shareholders perceive
> to be more likely to yield a good return. Obviously flawed logic, but
> that's what they think. And that accounts for more intense interest in
> Sirius in forums like this one.

Not everyone who posts here really cares about either as an investment.
You can add me to that pile. I'll tell you my financial involvement
with Sirius as a stock. I signed up for that free CBS Marketwatch stock
market game. It gave me $1 million in play money. I put it all in SIRI
at $2.79. If I logged back in, I'd still have nearly double my money.
Imagine if I would have sold at $8 or $9. I don't care. I'm more
interested in satellite radio from a technical standpoint and an
enjoyment standpoint. I don't make any money if I succeed or don't
succeed in showing people the truths about how this stuff works. But
that's not the point. You've claimed that most of the posts here about
reception have been about Sirius. It wasn't true then and it's not true
now. There's more posts here about Sirius in general. If the former
were true, of course there's going to be complaints out of proportion
since this group is not a proportional cross section of satellite radio
subscribers. Who cares where they come from, investors or not,
subscribers are subscribers. Here's some quick numbers from today I've
come up with for alt.radio.satellite:

504 xm reception
474 sirius reception
15,700 xm
21,800 sirius
3,560 frontmed sirius
3,390 frontmed xm

Gee, Frontmed, it seems even YOU talk about Sirius more than you do XM!

>>Very good. I'm sure the people who will be in those city centres where
>>the bandwidth will actually be available and receivable will appreciate
>>the 10 extra channels in addition to the free ones they'll be likely to
>>receive from other terrestrial sources likely with better coverage, i.e.
>>Broadcast TV and Broadcast HDTV!
>
>
> LOL. Whatever. Video was a big deal when Sirius thought they could do a
> couple of channels of cartoons. Now that XM has, once again, trounced them
> with better technology, it isn't important. But XM keeps on rolling.

Those couple of channels were without HM. How many channels do you
think they'll have with it? And those channels will be continent-wide,
not just city centres where you can pick up a WCS frequency. Either
way, I'd rather see that bandwidth go towards more channels and better
audio quality. That goes for both XM and Sirius. With those tracksat
type systems getting smaller and cheaper, there won't be much of a point
putting a handful of TV channels onto satellite radio when you can have
a few hundred channels with a TrackSat. WCS is just that much more
useless. Not only do you have slim pickings, but you only have those in
city centres. I think the soccer mom's are going to frown on that when
they find out they can't keep their kids busy with live TV as they
planned outside of the city borders. Keep on rolling XM...rolling down
the hill.

[ThirdNormalForm]

>>>>>>Not only do you have slim pickings, but you only have those in
city centres. I think the soccer mom's are going to frown on that when
they find out they can't keep their kids busy with live TV as they
planned outside of the city borders.

Think "TIVO".

XM's video strategy is quite different from the others ...

[David]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:37:43 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>>>>>>>Not only do you have slim pickings, but you only have those in
>city centres. I think the soccer mom's are going to frown on that when
>they find out they can't keep their kids busy with live TV as they
>planned outside of the city borders.
>
>Think "TIVO".
>
>XM's video strategy is quite different from the others ...
>
>
Think ''$5 DVD of public domain cartoons''. Or better yet, think
''look out the windows. It's America fer Chissakes''.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>>>>>>Not only do you have slim pickings, but you only have those in
>
> city centres. I think the soccer mom's are going to frown on that when
> they find out they can't keep their kids busy with live TV as they
> planned outside of the city borders.
>
> Think "TIVO".
>
> XM's video strategy is quite different from the others ...

A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low. Unless you
live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.

[Dr. Droo]

Mark S. wrote:
> A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
> chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
> enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low.

I'm sure the possibility is there if they build out heavy into the
suburbs and everything.

However, A lot of people don't live in the city, as you mention.
Boston's population goes from something like 200K to several million
during the work days. During the day people park in garages that are
definitely well obstructed to cellular and satellite radio, I doubt
they'll put repeaters in every parking garage in a city.

In order to fully cover 'the Boston region' for instance, you'd at
least need to cover Concord NH to Portsmouth NH to Providence RI or New
Bedford MA and probably west to Worcester MA or further. At the very
least anywhere you can get to in the course of an hour or so.

> Unless you
> live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
> going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
> long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
> traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
> eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
> called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.

PocketDish is a great idea and putting a stake in Archos as smart for
Dish Network. For about 439$ (60$ rebate off of 499$) you can get the
7 inch model. If someone made interfaces for OEM A/V gear in cars, I
think they would sell well.

However, let's not forget you can also go to Walmart and spend about
200 bucks and get a 2 screen Audiovox or Durabrand (Walmart store
brand) DVD player with seat back/headrest mounts, etc. These things
can hit 129$ a whack depending on time of year or a special.

--D

[David]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:16:07 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
wrote:

>ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>>>>>>>Not only do you have slim pickings, but you only have those in
>>
>> city centres. I think the soccer mom's are going to frown on that when
>> they find out they can't keep their kids busy with live TV as they
>> planned outside of the city borders.
>>
>> Think "TIVO".
>>
>> XM's video strategy is quite different from the others ...
>
>A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
>chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
>enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low. Unless you
>live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
>going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
>long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
>traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
>eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
>called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.

Electronic heroin for the children doesn't have to be ''live''.

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
> chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
> enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low. Unless you
> live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
> going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
> long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
> traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
> eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
> called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.

1. WCS covers a substantial portion of the US, including about 20 of the
largest metro areas.

2. The cost of storing cached material is small now, and getting smaller.
You can cache a lot of stuff. My TIVO has a 200GB hard drive in it that
cost $100 and you have to really record a lot of stuff to keep it full.

3. Does PocketDish do realtime video?

[ThirdNormalForm]

> > A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
> > chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
> > enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low.
>
> I'm sure the possibility is there if they build out heavy into the
> suburbs and everything.
>
> However, A lot of people don't live in the city, as you mention.
> Boston's population goes from something like 200K to several million
> during the work days. During the day people park in garages that are
> definitely well obstructed to cellular and satellite radio, I doubt
> they'll put repeaters in every parking garage in a city.
>
> In order to fully cover 'the Boston region' for instance, you'd at
> least need to cover Concord NH to Portsmouth NH to Providence RI or New
> Bedford MA and probably west to Worcester MA or further. At the very
> least anywhere you can get to in the course of an hour or so.
>

Do you really think XM's engineering people, who are responsible for every
significant innovation in this field, aren't THINKING?


> > Unless you
> > live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
> > going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
> > long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
> > traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
> > eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
> > called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.
>
> PocketDish is a great idea and putting a stake in Archos as smart for
> Dish Network. For about 439$ (60$ rebate off of 499$) you can get the
> 7 inch model. If someone made interfaces for OEM A/V gear in cars, I
> think they would sell well.
>
> However, let's not forget you can also go to Walmart and spend about
> 200 bucks and get a 2 screen Audiovox or Durabrand (Walmart store
> brand) DVD player with seat back/headrest mounts, etc. These things
> can hit 129$ a whack depending on time of year or a special.
>

Let's not forget that XM has already shown portable realtime and cached
video on WCS bandwidth. Much more "portable" than the PocketDish.

[Mark S.]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
>>chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
>>enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low. Unless you
>>live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
>>going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
>>long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
>>traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
>>eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
>>called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.
>
>
> 1. WCS covers a substantial portion of the US, including about 20 of the
> largest metro areas.

20 of the country's largest metro areas isn't what I'd consider a
substantial enough portion of the US to serve the majority of XM's
listeners the majority of the time.

> 2. The cost of storing cached material is small now, and getting smaller.
> You can cache a lot of stuff. My TIVO has a 200GB hard drive in it that
> cost $100 and you have to really record a lot of stuff to keep it full.

So why do you need XM for this when people can take their satellite TV
from home with them, and even more content than ever before with the
cost of storing data is going down and capacities are going up? Let's
not forget what Droo and David mentioned, DVD's.

> 3. Does PocketDish do realtime video?

We've already discussed realtime video. More channels and more content
in better quality are already available in more places than where WCS
will be. I'd bet you those 20 metro areas have more HDTV stations with
more content, better quality by default and stronger transmitters on
higher towers than WCS will ever be able to match. You can TIVO them
all you want for free. Not to mention most HDTV stations these days
multicast more than one channel of video, like The Tube TV. TrakSat
antennas are getting smaller and cheaper all the time. When you can add
one of those to your home sat tv subscription for cheaper than XM (or
free even), why would anyone want XM's 10 channels of cached content
that you might not be able to cache all of and can only see live
sometimes when you could have a few hundred live TV stations?

[Mark S.]

David wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:16:07 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>ThirdNormalForm wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Not only do you have slim pickings, but you only have those in
>>>
>>>city centres. I think the soccer mom's are going to frown on that when
>>>they find out they can't keep their kids busy with live TV as they
>>>planned outside of the city borders.
>>>
>>>Think "TIVO".
>>>
>>>XM's video strategy is quite different from the others ...
>>
>>A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
>>chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
>>enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low. Unless you
>>live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
>>going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
>>long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
>>traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
>>eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
>>called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.
>
>
> Electronic heroin for the children doesn't have to be ''live''.

Nope, it sure doesn't. Given the costs that would be associated with
what XM is planning to waste WCS on and how poorly it will likely
function, I think most would prefer to go the DVD route. For those who
want TIVO on the go or live TV reception out and about, there's already
options out there.

[Mark S.]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> Mark S. wrote:
>
>>A 'digital fountain' for video via WCS? That's a worse idea yet! The
>>chances of most people being around WCS towers long enough to cache
>>enough data for what they want to see is probably quite low.
>
>
> I'm sure the possibility is there if they build out heavy into the
> suburbs and everything.
>
> However, A lot of people don't live in the city, as you mention.
> Boston's population goes from something like 200K to several million
> during the work days. During the day people park in garages that are
> definitely well obstructed to cellular and satellite radio, I doubt
> they'll put repeaters in every parking garage in a city.
>
> In order to fully cover 'the Boston region' for instance, you'd at
> least need to cover Concord NH to Portsmouth NH to Providence RI or New
> Bedford MA and probably west to Worcester MA or further. At the very
> least anywhere you can get to in the course of an hour or so.

That situation isn't unique to Boston either. The larger the metro
centre, the more likely that you'll have that same scenario played out
in that area. Given that XM's reception is at it's poorest in rural
areas anyways, it doesn't suprise me in the least that they'd not give a
crap about the people who live or travel outside major metro areas now.
IMO, the best thing XM could do with WCS at this point is sit on the
allocation and sell it in a couple of years at a profit; make it an
investment.

>>Unless you
>>live downtown, or close to downtown, are staying there in a hotel or are
>>going to be parked there long enough, you're screwed. What happens on a
>>long road trip? Don't most people take the loops around town to avoid
>>traffic? Wouldn't you play through all of your cached content
>>eventually? Besides, Dish Network already has something like this
>>called the Pocket Dish. And it has Sirius, not XM.
>
>
> PocketDish is a great idea and putting a stake in Archos as smart for
> Dish Network. For about 439$ (60$ rebate off of 499$) you can get the
> 7 inch model. If someone made interfaces for OEM A/V gear in cars, I
> think they would sell well.
>
> However, let's not forget you can also go to Walmart and spend about
> 200 bucks and get a 2 screen Audiovox or Durabrand (Walmart store
> brand) DVD player with seat back/headrest mounts, etc. These things
> can hit 129$ a whack depending on time of year or a special.

Exactly. I've seen them at Costco as well for pretty cheap. Given that
the largest market for something like this is most likely parents trying
to keep their kids pacified on a long road trip, I don't think they'd
care whether their cartoon/movie is broadcast live or not. And
considering they wouldn't even be able to watch content live from XM
most of the time, it wouldn't matter anyways.

[Dr. Droo]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> Do you really think XM's engineering people, who are responsible for every
> significant innovation in this field, aren't THINKING?

Yes I think they're not thinking. I'm glad I'm not a shareholder in
XM.

> Let's not forget that XM has already shown portable realtime and cached
> video on WCS bandwidth. Much more "portable" than the PocketDish.

PocketDish always works and doesn't require any sort of signal. It can
even plug into a VCR or DVD player and record stuff directly onto it.
It also doesn't have any monthly fees unless you want to use it with
Dish Network content.

Bang for buck is very high with it.

--D

[Dr. Droo]

Mark S. wrote:
> That situation isn't unique to Boston either.

Correct, I use Boston as an example solely because it's my nearest
metro area and I'm there a lot.. :)

NY is probably even worse because people may be in PA, NJ, CT, or NY.
Some may even be in MA.

The LA metro area is huge and stretches into Orange County depending on
how you look at it.

> IMO, the best thing XM could do with WCS at this point is sit on the
> allocation and sell it in a couple of years at a profit; make it an
> investment.

That may not be a bad idea, although the previous owner wasn't able to
or didn't make use of it either.

> Exactly. I've seen them at Costco as well for pretty cheap. Given that
> the largest market for something like this is most likely parents trying
> to keep their kids pacified on a long road trip, I don't think they'd
> care whether their cartoon/movie is broadcast live or not. And
> considering they wouldn't even be able to watch content live from XM
> most of the time, it wouldn't matter anyways.

I can only imagine what such a thing is going to cost considering the
hefty terrestrial up-front costs to provide such a service. I wonder
how XM Radio customers are going to feel about having to subsidize such
a project instead of that money going into evolving the product that
the majority of customers are subscribing to.

They'd really be better off going to profit and then making spin-off
subsidiaries with investment funds to do this nonsense. If they wait
too long and do nothing though, then the FCC might kick them around.
You can't just squat on allocations and not use them.

--D

[Dr. Droo]

Mark S. wrote:
> 20 of the country's largest metro areas isn't what I'd consider a
> substantial enough portion of the US to serve the majority of XM's
> listeners the majority of the time.

What the licenses cover and where XM can and will put hardware on the
ground are two different things too. Also how far these licenses
stretch and what they consider a metro area vs where people do are
different. If you cover interior Boston, say 5-10 miles from city
center, that's technically covering the metro area but definitely isn't
covering a lot of people..

> I'd bet you those 20 metro areas have more HDTV stations with
> more content, better quality by default and stronger transmitters on
> higher towers than WCS will ever be able to match.

That's a good point. They're also UHF and generally have pretty good
infrastructure so the odds are good about getting a signal. WCS will
be microwave. Anyone with any knowledge of radio theory should know
the benefits the Local TV folks have, especially in price/perf.

Some aftermarket head units even have TV Tuners already.

--D

[ThirdNormalForm]

"Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143044122.767812.23100@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> > Do you really think XM's engineering people, who are responsible for
every
> > significant innovation in this field, aren't THINKING?
>
> Yes I think they're not thinking. I'm glad I'm not a shareholder in
> XM.

Considering that every significant innovation in the satellite radio
business has come from XM, that's a fairly ignorant remark.

That's not to say that Sirius isn't or won't make progress. But the reality
is that as of right now XM has a huge technology lead. And regardless of
what you think about the WCS bandwidth, it gives XM a huge advantage over
Sirius for a lot of reasons.

Bandwidth is the name of the game. The guy who has the most and can make
the most out of what he has, wins. As Dobie is so fond of saying, "It is
really that simple".

> > Let's not forget that XM has already shown portable realtime and cached
> > video on WCS bandwidth. Much more "portable" than the PocketDish.
>
> PocketDish always works and doesn't require any sort of signal. It can
> even plug into a VCR or DVD player and record stuff directly onto it.
> It also doesn't have any monthly fees unless you want to use it with
> Dish Network content.
>

The PocketDish is to video what the S50 is to radio. No live content, the
principal reason the S50 failed.

I've not seen the business model for XM's video yet, and it may be a flop, I
don't know. I have always had doubts about these guys getting into the
video business.

But after CES, when I fully realized what they are doing, and that this
isn't "two channels of cartoons in the backseat", I got behind it. I
believe there will be demand for a "satellite receiver" that can receive
live, realtime, on the go video as well as radio. And if WCS is approved,
once XM rolls it out, you will quickly see handheld receivers capable of
both realtime audio and video, as well as cached. And these will be very ap
pealing to many people, IMO. Two channels of realtime cartoons is a totally
different thing.


When you naively suggest that XM's engineering isn't getting it done, you
should keep in mind that for three years running Sirius has promised video
"within 18 months", and each time, they have further delayed it. XM has yet
to "promise" video at all, but they have it WORKING in a much more robust
manner. Same thing with H/M -- Sirius made a big splash about it for '06,
now they've slid until '07. XM is right there.

As far as I can see there is not ONE area where Sirius is even close to XM
in the technology arena. Can YOU point to one?

[Dr. Droo]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> Considering that every significant innovation in the satellite radio
> business has come from XM, that's a fairly ignorant remark.

'Innovations' don't always come to fruition. Sometimes they're left on
the cutting room floor, either because of costs or sometimes later
applied to evolve other product. If memory serves, Sirius had much of
their infrastructure up well before XM even dreamed of becoming a
service, just didn't provide their product until after.

> That's not to say that Sirius isn't or won't make progress. But the reality
> is that as of right now XM has a huge technology lead. And regardless of
> what you think about the WCS bandwidth, it gives XM a huge advantage over
> Sirius for a lot of reasons.

XM doesn't even have a mp3+sat appliance and won't until a few months
short of the Sirius 2nd generation product. But with that aside...

This bandwidth you speak of gives XM no advantage in pretty much MOST
of America. Perhaps you need to go to a big metro area. Little Rock
doesn't count, even if Clinton is from there.

> Bandwidth is the name of the game. The guy who has the most and can make
> the most out of what he has, wins. As Dobie is so fond of saying, "It is
> really that simple".

Bandwidth matters severe if it's nationwide bandwidth and/or on sats.
This is just nickel and diming nonsense. XM has decided to become a
terrestrial microwave carrier, which means they'll be competing with
Wimax, Wifi, Cellular. All of those guys, of course, have more evolved
infrastructure and can compete handily.

Also - Let's not forget that Bluetooth-based telematics are continuing
to evolve, and that works anywhere a cell phone does, including here
AND the metro areas for WCS.

> The PocketDish is to video what the S50 is to radio. No live content, the
> principal reason the S50 failed.

Don't need Live content. People are just fine buying DVDs and we're in
a TIVO frame of mind. We want to watch it when we want, not when the
broadcasters tell us to. Are you really this dumb? People skip
commercials and they Tivo so they can go live life when they want
instead of around their TV shows.

I assure you this week's ER episode will be the SAME if you watch it on
Friday or Thursday. The same goes for American Idol, Survivor, The
Sopranos, etc. These are not time-sensitive shows.

Do you know how OLD the cartoons on PBS are? Do you realize how many
kids watch that stuff during the day? Do you realize that children
make up the majority of in-car television viewers? Wanna know why?
The adults are driving the car.. No, really. Kids can't drive cars..

I do realize in your state they allow permits at 14 and licenses at 16
(here it's 17/18), but there's still the ages from 1 up through 14
which would be watching the majority of in-vehicle video.

> I've not seen the business model for XM's video yet, and it may be a flop, I
> don't know. I have always had doubts about these guys getting into the
> video business.

I think it's a bad use of resources, as I've said before. Do one thing
and do it well first, make profit, then you'll have money to dabble in
other arenas and can afford failure or startup costs better.

> I
> believe there will be demand for a "satellite receiver" that can receive
> live, realtime, on the go video as well as radio.

People aren't going to care about 2 channels of TV any more than a few
channels if you happen to be in the right part of any given city.
Realize that I can get live realtime on the go video from my Sony cell
phone right now, even on the road. Heck I can stream it right from my
Dish Network box sitting here at home for free using ORB. It doesn't
matter if I'm in Fort Kent Maine (Northernmost point of Maine), or if
I'm in Boston Mass, it works.

Let's not forget that there's this thing called a Slingbox that's
taking the country by storm too which does similar to what Orb does and
can even trigger your Tivo, Cable Co DVR, etc. to change channels, all
remotely.

I don't think you fully appreciate how many people are living around
cached video because they're no longer tethered to live programming.

I also don't think you fully appreciate the fact that LIVE video in
your hand is NOT a new concept, it's already on cell phones and
evolving daily. Mobitv has been around for a while, Sprint and Verizon
also offer products for TV watching.

I hear this company called Apple sells a lot of TV shows on a screen
under 3" in size, not live either.

> When you naively suggest that XM's engineering isn't getting it done, you
> should keep in mind that for three years running Sirius has promised video
> "within 18 months", and each time, they have further delayed it. XM has yet
> to "promise" video at all, but they have it WORKING in a much more robust
> manner. Same thing with H/M -- Sirius made a big splash about it for '06,
> now they've slid until '07. XM is right there.

I hope Sirius delays it indefinitely really. It's just a poor idea and
a bad use of spectrum when most of us would prefer a more evolved radio
product (both in quality, neither of which offer 'CD quality' as they
claim, but also in quantity of content).. I already have live TV
through terrestrial HDTV and they have better reach on UHF than XM's
limited-territory fee-based microwave solution will be.

If Sirius were to do it - I'd rather Sirius partner with someone to
offer TV, such as integrating some sort of multicast over cellular
hardware into their solution or offer a sound integrated solution to
bring in ATSC HDTV into the vehicle. Most (maybe all?) current
vehicles don't do HDTV, maybe not even over the air programming at all.


> As far as I can see there is not ONE area where Sirius is even close to XM
> in the technology arena. Can YOU point to one?

I'm still waiting for a MP3 capable unit from XM. Seems they'll have
one once Sirius has finished selling their first run of units. If
memory serves - The ReGO was a concept in 2004, you'd think XM woulda
thought it made sense back then.

SIGMA and SiriusConnect are the two things that come to mind for me.
XM didn't have either before Sirius did, and all the XM equipped
vehicles I see here have some eyesore antenna on them either on the
exterior of the glass or on the roof.

As you should know - SiriusConnect is the technology that provides a
core receiver for installed applications and allows anyone to create a
a widget that docks to it (Kenwood, Eclipse/Fujitsu Ten, Sony, and some
others are offered, including GM vehicles). This has increased the
flexibility and stability for integrated tuners in vehicles for Sirius.
This is not to be confused with their new technology for home
appliances.

--D

[David]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:23:00 -0330, "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com>
wrote:

>
>20 of the country's largest metro areas isn't what I'd consider a
>substantial enough portion of the US to serve the majority of XM's
>listeners the majority of the time.
>
Half the people do not live in major metros.

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> 'Innovations' don't always come to fruition. Sometimes they're left on
> the cutting room floor, either because of costs or sometimes later
> applied to evolve other product. If memory serves, Sirius had much of
> their infrastructure up well before XM even dreamed of becoming a
> service, just didn't provide their product until after.

I'm talking about innovations in SDARS. Like the plug & play receiver
(invented by XM), the Buy Button (invented, in its current form, by XM), the
Navtraffic Service, etc. All XM innovations. Name a Sirius innovation.

Sirius did NOT have much of its infrastructure up before XM dreamed of
becoming a service. That is totally inconsistent with the history of the
industry.

> > That's not to say that Sirius isn't or won't make progress. But the
reality
> > is that as of right now XM has a huge technology lead. And regardless
of
> > what you think about the WCS bandwidth, it gives XM a huge advantage
over
> > Sirius for a lot of reasons.
>
> XM doesn't even have a mp3+sat appliance and won't until a few months
> short of the Sirius 2nd generation product. But with that aside...
>

Sirius doesn't either. Their feeble attempt resulted in the longest unfixed
bug list in the industry, can't receive live satellite feeds, and production
has been stopped because the idiots didn't do their homework. Yes, they got
the POS to market first, but the return rates are insane and the product is
virtually a waste. Very few were sold and they've already had to cease
production.

> This bandwidth you speak of gives XM no advantage in pretty much MOST
> of America. Perhaps you need to go to a big metro area. Little Rock
> doesn't count, even if Clinton is from there.

You're actually wrong. It covers "most" of American, servicing an estimated
population of 180 Million, with an average of 9.7 MHz. Metro areas include,
but are not limited to, NYC, LA/San Dieago, San Fransico/Oakland, Chicago,
D/FW, Detroit, Boston, Philly, Houston, Cleveland, Denver, Seattle, St
Louis, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, KC, SLC, OKC, all of HAWAII, etc.
And the rest of the USA is covered by "potential" partners.

>
> Bandwidth matters severe if it's nationwide bandwidth and/or on sats.
> This is just nickel and diming nonsense. XM has decided to become a
> terrestrial microwave carrier, which means they'll be competing with
> Wimax, Wifi, Cellular. All of those guys, of course, have more evolved
> infrastructure and can compete handily.

Idiotic remark. Just ignorant. None of these other technologies is
anywhere close (e.g., within 5-10 years) of delivering what we're talking
about.

> Also - Let's not forget that Bluetooth-based telematics are continuing
> to evolve, and that works anywhere a cell phone does, including here
> AND the metro areas for WCS.

Telematics is a small part of a comprehensive package. It will continue to
evolve, but the cellphone infrastructure is heavily taxed.


> Don't need Live content. People are just fine buying DVDs and we're in
> a TIVO frame of mind. We want to watch it when we want, not when the
> broadcasters tell us to. Are you really this dumb? People skip
> commercials and they Tivo so they can go live life when they want
> instead of around their TV shows.

Idiot. There is programming that is good live. There is other programming
that is fine TIVOed. You have to have both to cover the bases. XM will be
able to deliver realtime programming where necessary, TIVOed where it isn't.
Sirius can't deliver either.


> I do realize in your state they allow permits at 14 and licenses at 16
> (here it's 17/18), but there's still the ages from 1 up through 14
> which would be watching the majority of in-vehicle video.

Sirius is limiting its coverage to "in-vehicle". Xm isn't. You'll be able
to watch Fox News in real time while you're at the NFL game. Or a different
NFL game. Sirius can't do that.

> I think it's a bad use of resources, as I've said before. Do one thing
> and do it well first, make profit, then you'll have money to dabble in
> other arenas and can afford failure or startup costs better.

XM has its SDARS business hitting on all cylinders. It is fine for them to
be moving forward.

>
> People aren't going to care about 2 channels of TV any more than a few
> channels if you happen to be in the right part of any given city.
> Realize that I can get live realtime on the go video from my Sony cell
> phone right now, even on the road. Heck I can stream it right from my
> Dish Network box sitting here at home for free using ORB. It doesn't
> matter if I'm in Fort Kent Maine (Northernmost point of Maine), or if
> I'm in Boston Mass, it works.

You can, but it is crap, and you know it.

> Let's not forget that there's this thing called a Slingbox that's
> taking the country by storm too which does similar to what Orb does and
> can even trigger your Tivo, Cable Co DVR, etc. to change channels, all
> remotely.
>

Slingbox is fine as long as you have an Internet connection for it and a PC
to run the client on. Which you don't when you're in the car, or out on the
lake in your boat, or at the game.

> I don't think you fully appreciate how many people are living around
> cached video because they're no longer tethered to live programming.

Uh, I watch cached video almost exclusively. At least 95% of what I watch.
Yet, Sirius is fucking around with two channels of cartoons. Explain THAT
one.

> I also don't think you fully appreciate the fact that LIVE video in
> your hand is NOT a new concept, it's already on cell phones and
> evolving daily. Mobitv has been around for a while, Sprint and Verizon
> also offer products for TV watching.

The cellphone network is not going to be supporting live video in any
workable sense anytime soon.

>
> I hear this company called Apple sells a lot of TV shows on a screen
> under 3" in size, not live either.
>

To be fair, AAPL has recognized the need for the bigger screen and there are
reports the 60GB unit is meeting an early death for that reason.

I believe it is clear that XM is not planning to cede this market to AAPL,
SIRI, or anyone else.

> I hope Sirius delays it indefinitely really. It's just a poor idea and
> a bad use of spectrum when most of us would prefer a more evolved radio
> product (both in quality, neither of which offer 'CD quality' as they
> claim, but also in quantity of content).. I already have live TV
> through terrestrial HDTV and they have better reach on UHF than XM's
> limited-territory fee-based microwave solution will be.
>
> If Sirius were to do it - I'd rather Sirius partner with someone to
> offer TV, such as integrating some sort of multicast over cellular
> hardware into their solution or offer a sound integrated solution to
> bring in ATSC HDTV into the vehicle. Most (maybe all?) current
> vehicles don't do HDTV, maybe not even over the air programming at all.
>

Whatever. Sirius couldn't cut it; XM has.


> I'm still waiting for a MP3 capable unit from XM. Seems they'll have
> one once Sirius has finished selling their first run of units. If
> memory serves - The ReGO was a concept in 2004, you'd think XM woulda
> thought it made sense back then.

"First run"? Of what, 20K units? If that?


> SIGMA and SiriusConnect are the two things that come to mind for me.
> XM didn't have either before Sirius did, and all the XM equipped
> vehicles I see here have some eyesore antenna on them either on the
> exterior of the glass or on the roof.

XM had both before Sirius did. The XM glassmount is less obtrusive than the
so-called "Sigma". And you talk about an "eyesore", but XM's antenna tech
is lightyears ahead of SIRI's. Maybe you should check out the antennas on
the new boom boxes & Helix/Inno.

> As you should know - SiriusConnect is the technology that provides a
> core receiver for installed applications and allows anyone to create a
> a widget that docks to it (Kenwood, Eclipse/Fujitsu Ten, Sony, and some
> others are offered, including GM vehicles). This has increased the
> flexibility and stability for integrated tuners in vehicles for Sirius.
> This is not to be confused with their new technology for home
> appliances.
>

Loook, you have to be pretty ignorant to even try to make the case you're
trying to make. If you were paying attention, you would know better.
Nobody who knows what is going on with this industry would try to claim that
XM isn't far in the lead with its technology. The only question is whether
Sirius is catching up any or losing ground.

If you want to make an argument, let's hear it.

[ThirdNormalForm]

You guys are funny.

You bash everything XM is doing, yet XM continues to roll. Two months after
Stern arrives, XM is now once again leading at retail. After Sirius
announced its first "wearable" over a year ago (the Rego at CES), we're
still waiting. After Sirius announced video 3 years running at CES, they
still can't deliver. After Sirius announced H/M six or eight months ago, we
now see it slipped already into '07.

[Dr. Droo]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> I'm talking about innovations in SDARS. Like the plug & play receiver
> (invented by XM), the Buy Button (invented, in its current form, by XM), the
> Navtraffic Service, etc. All XM innovations. Name a Sirius innovation.

I already have below.

> Sirius doesn't either. Their feeble attempt resulted in the longest unfixed
> bug list in the industry, can't receive live satellite feeds, and production
> has been stopped because the idiots didn't do their homework. Yes, they got
> the POS to market first, but the return rates are insane and the product is
> virtually a waste. Very few were sold and they've already had to cease
> production.

I have one sitting on my desk, Frontmed. Listening to it right now
even. It definitely exists and mine works very well. They will have
made about a million of them at cut-off according to an article I
cited.

> You're actually wrong. It covers "most" of American, servicing an estimated
> population of 180 Million, with an average of 9.7 MHz. Metro areas include,
> but are not limited to, NYC, LA/San Dieago, San Fransico/Oakland, Chicago,
> D/FW, Detroit, Boston, Philly, Houston, Cleveland, Denver, Seattle, St
> Louis, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, KC, SLC, OKC, all of HAWAII, etc.
> And the rest of the USA is covered by "potential" partners.

Not most of America in surface area, most of America as in potential
people.. That's a funny game, captain. You're splitting ----hairs in
the same way that Verizon does.

> Idiotic remark. Just ignorant. None of these other technologies is
> anywhere close (e.g., within 5-10 years) of delivering what we're talking
> about.

Whatever you say, Frontmed.. Much of it works today as we speak. You
obviously need to get out more.

> Telematics is a small part of a comprehensive package. It will continue to
> evolve, but the cellphone infrastructure is heavily taxed.

My cell phone data worked the same in Boston MA as here. I went to the
trunk, grabbed my laptop, hit connect, and I was on the net at a speed
3 times that of dialup. When 3G comes, it'll be much much higher.

> Idiot. There is programming that is good live. There is other programming
> that is fine TIVOed. You have to have both to cover the bases. XM will be
> able to deliver realtime programming where necessary, TIVOed where it isn't.
> Sirius can't deliver either.

Whatever you say, Jethro. THe people watching in a car don't care
about live or cached. That's because they're kids!

> Sirius is limiting its coverage to "in-vehicle". Xm isn't. You'll be able
> to watch Fox News in real time while you're at the NFL game. Or a different
> NFL game. Sirius can't do that.

Assuming these people are willing to Partner with XM for such things.
Go look at what Verizon IPTV is going through trying to get people to
provide content to their service.. That's an uphill battle.

> XM has its SDARS business hitting on all cylinders. It is fine for them to
> be moving forward.

Sure, perpendicular to forward, as in, Down. Look at the stock.

> You can, but it is crap, and you know it.

For the price it works well, on 3G it's very impressive however and
very nice. 3G service is already here and more and more each day in
the fringe markets. We may even have 3G service here before XM even
gets WCS off the ground.

> Slingbox is fine as long as you have an Internet connection for it and a PC
> to run the client on. Which you don't when you're in the car, or out on the
> lake in your boat, or at the game.

Again, I have ORB as a server and I definitely can watch TV on my phone
without a TV. Slingbox will probably have a client for Symbian or
PocketPC if they don't already.

> Uh, I watch cached video almost exclusively. At least 95% of what I watch.
> Yet, Sirius is fucking around with two channels of cartoons. Explain THAT
> one.

Sirius WAS fucking around with two channels of cartoons for a demo.
What they end up ultimately doing? who knows. I hope they don't bother
with video.

> The cellphone network is not going to be supporting live video in any
> workable sense anytime soon.

You'll see.

> To be fair, AAPL has recognized the need for the bigger screen and there are
> reports the 60GB unit is meeting an early death for that reason.

Yep, and people will still be watching cached video on that too.

> I believe it is clear that XM is not planning to cede this market to AAPL,
> SIRI, or anyone else.

We'll see Frontmed.. There's no proof they're doing anything.. Just
your assurances, which are, to be quite honest, worth slightly less
than nothing.

> Whatever. Sirius couldn't cut it; XM has.

Again, XM has done NOTHING yet.

> "First run"? Of what, 20K units? If that?

About 1 million units.

> XM had both before Sirius did. The XM glassmount is less obtrusive than the
> so-called "Sigma". And you talk about an "eyesore", but XM's antenna tech
> is lightyears ahead of SIRI's. Maybe you should check out the antennas on
> the new boom boxes & Helix/Inno.

Bull----. XM's glassmount has an exterior portion on their 'glass
mount'. I've seen it. XM did not have XM Direct before SiriusConnect
either.

> Loook, you have to be pretty ignorant to even try to make the case you're
> trying to make. If you were paying attention, you would know better.
> Nobody who knows what is going on with this industry would try to claim that
> XM isn't far in the lead with its technology. The only question is whether
> Sirius is catching up any or losing ground.

XM can have ALL the technology in the world and still definitely fail.
This is what you don't understand.

You need to convince people to want to buy the stuff. They're having
problems doing that to the point that they're giving away hardware and
selling subs for 3$ a month just to convince people not to churn out.

There's all sorts of 'great technological strides' in the industry that
seem like a good idea but never actually pay off their dev costs or
evolve into a must have product. You should know this but obviously
you've spent too much time around high tension wires.

--D

[David]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:21:16 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:

>If you want to make an argument, let's hear it.
>
>
XM can't even do radio right, let alone TV. It is very capital
intensive, relatively low margin and the content costs are
astronomical. Terrible business to throw money at.

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> I already have below.

Whatever.

> I have one sitting on my desk, Frontmed. Listening to it right now
> even. It definitely exists and mine works very well. They will have
> made about a million of them at cut-off according to an article I
> cited.

I'm sure you do and I'm sure you love it. But the fact is that the bug list
is absolutely embarrassing for a modern day consumer electronics product.
If you know anything about software development, and I think you do, you
know that these bugs wouldn't be tolerated in any commercial product. If
one of my programs got out with that many showstoppers in it, my customers
would drive me nuts. I can't imagine a widely distributed product getting
out with that many problems.

>
> Not most of America in surface area, most of America as in potential
> people.. That's a funny game, captain. You're splitting ----hairs in
> the same way that Verizon does.

Actually, most of America in both surface area and people. The WCS
bandwidth covers all of the western US, plus parts of the NE (including NYC,
Philly, and most of ME, you'll be glad to know). It does not include the SE
(which is owned by BellSouth) or the Great Lakes region owned by Cingular.
Comcast owns a small amount of the NE region.

Furthermore, you should keep in mind that the biggest non-XM chunk is owned
by BellSouth, and is not in substantial use by them, and very well could be
'available'.

The point is that neither you nor I really knows how much of the WCS
spectrum XM is going to end up with. At the very least it covers more than
half (about 75%) of the people and more than half the real estate in the US.

> > Idiotic remark. Just ignorant. None of these other technologies is
> > anywhere close (e.g., within 5-10 years) of delivering what we're
talking
> > about.
>
> Whatever you say, Frontmed.. Much of it works today as we speak. You
> obviously need to get out more.

What? Much of "it" works today as we speak? WTF are you talking about?
You're certainly not trying to suggest that there is significant WiFi/Wimax
coverage, OR that the cellphone network provides the infrastructure for
video, right?

How about you explain what you're talking about?

> > Telematics is a small part of a comprehensive package. It will continue
to
> > evolve, but the cellphone infrastructure is heavily taxed.
>
> My cell phone data worked the same in Boston MA as here. I went to the
> trunk, grabbed my laptop, hit connect, and I was on the net at a speed
> 3 times that of dialup. When 3G comes, it'll be much much higher.

Sure, I can find hotspots, too. But it takes a lot more than this to
deliver video to a significant number of customers.

The thing that presents the problem is that someone has to pay for the
bandwidth and that's been tried and failed. Let me know when a business
model exists other than what XM has to offer.

> > Idiot. There is programming that is good live. There is other
programming
> > that is fine TIVOed. You have to have both to cover the bases. XM will
be
> > able to deliver realtime programming where necessary, TIVOed where it
isn't.
> > Sirius can't deliver either.
>
> Whatever you say, Jethro. THe people watching in a car don't care
> about live or cached. That's because they're kids!

Who is talking about in a car. That's a very limited market.

> > Sirius is limiting its coverage to "in-vehicle". Xm isn't. You'll be
able
> > to watch Fox News in real time while you're at the NFL game. Or a
different
> > NFL game. Sirius can't do that.
>
> Assuming these people are willing to Partner with XM for such things.
> Go look at what Verizon IPTV is going through trying to get people to
> provide content to their service.. That's an uphill battle.

XM will be partnering with DirecTV. Watch.

> > XM has its SDARS business hitting on all cylinders. It is fine for them
to
> > be moving forward.
>
> Sure, perpendicular to forward, as in, Down. Look at the stock.

Well, neither stock is performing worth a damn. So, is that your measuring
stick?

>
> For the price it works well, on 3G it's very impressive however and
> very nice. 3G service is already here and more and more each day in
> the fringe markets. We may even have 3G service here before XM even
> gets WCS off the ground.

Oh, bull----.


> Again, I have ORB as a server and I definitely can watch TV on my phone
> without a TV. Slingbox will probably have a client for Symbian or
> PocketPC if they don't already.

LOL.


> We'll see Frontmed.. There's no proof they're doing anything.. Just
> your assurances, which are, to be quite honest, worth slightly less
> than nothing.

I'm not making any assurances.

>
> > "First run"? Of what, 20K units? If that?
>
> About 1 million units.

Don't be a fucking idiot. That analyst was talking out his ass. Nobody who
knows ANYTHING about this business suspects a million, a halfmillion, or
even a quarter million were built. If they built 50K it would be very
surprising.

> Bull----. XM's glassmount has an exterior portion on their 'glass
> mount'. I've seen it. XM did not have XM Direct before SiriusConnect
> either.

To be honest, I think XM has moved past the glassmount. They are now
focusing on stealth, diversity units that eliminate the need for any visible
device on the car at all. Where is Sirius on THAT?

> > Loook, you have to be pretty ignorant to even try to make the case
you're
> > trying to make. If you were paying attention, you would know better.
> > Nobody who knows what is going on with this industry would try to claim
that
> > XM isn't far in the lead with its technology. The only question is
whether
> > Sirius is catching up any or losing ground.
>
> XM can have ALL the technology in the world and still definitely fail.
> This is what you don't understand.
>

No, I understand that great technology doesn't equate to financial success.
But I do know a little about finance, and I can tell you there is a reason
that every credible broker rates XM higher than Sirius.

> You need to convince people to want to buy the stuff. They're having
> problems doing that to the point that they're giving away hardware and
> selling subs for 3$ a month just to convince people not to churn out.

They are NOT selling subs for $3 a month and the hardware they are giving
away can be given away and still cost the company less than what Sirius is
selling at full price costs Sirius...

> There's all sorts of 'great technological strides' in the industry that
> seem like a good idea but never actually pay off their dev costs or
> evolve into a must have product. You should know this but obviously
> you've spent too much time around high tension wires.
>

You've yet to admit you're wrong about anything and you're not going to
start now. You and Doberman are just alike in that respect.

[David]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:32:09 GMT, "ThirdNormalForm" <TNF@nomail.com>
wrote:


>Actually, most of America in both surface area and people. The WCS
>bandwidth covers all of the western US,

That is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

[Dr. Droo]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> I'm sure you do and I'm sure you love it. But the fact is that the bug list
> is absolutely embarrassing for a modern day consumer electronics product.
> If you know anything about software development, and I think you do, you
> know that these bugs wouldn't be tolerated in any commercial product. If
> one of my programs got out with that many showstoppers in it, my customers
> would drive me nuts. I can't imagine a widely distributed product getting
> out with that many problems.

No bugs here. I'm sure other people have isolated situations with
theirs but mine doesn't crash, freeze, hang up, etc. It just happens
to work. I've come out and said they do need to fix the bugs that
happen to multiple people, I've never said otherwise.

However, with this in mind, MANY problems people have are either
feature requests or they're situations that have to do with their
computer. If you visit SBS at all still, you'll find the latter I
spend a fair deal of time each day handling. I don't expect Sirius to
be in the IT Support business.

> Actually, most of America in both surface area and people. The WCS
> bandwidth covers all of the western US, plus parts of the NE (including NYC,
> Philly, and most of ME, you'll be glad to know). It does not include the SE
> (which is owned by BellSouth) or the Great Lakes region owned by Cingular.
> Comcast owns a small amount of the NE region.

And where's this map you speak of? Also do you know what a NIMBY is?
Better yet, do you realize how many towers on 1900mhz are needed to
cover from ME to MA, let alone cover outward? As the frequency goes
up, the same power signal goes less.

I didn't realize XM really wanted to get hot and heavy into the
terrestrial microwave business. This is looking more and more like a
bad investment all the time.

> Furthermore, you should keep in mind that the biggest non-XM chunk is owned
> by BellSouth, and is not in substantial use by them, and very well could be
> 'available'.

Available, so they can put up more infrastructure for a pipe dream.
Like I said, glad I'm not an XM shareholder having to foot the bill for
all this. I have family in the cellular industry and know the costs
and prep involved in throwing up telecom towers and racks.

> The point is that neither you nor I really knows how much of the WCS
> spectrum XM is going to end up with. At the very least it covers more than
> half (about 75%) of the people and more than half the real estate in the US.

Like I said I'd love to see the map. However, I'd definitely not want
to be one to pay for it. Having the licenses does not mean they'll be
building either, it just means they can, barring the other situations
going on with putting up structures and racks.

> What? Much of "it" works today as we speak? WTF are you talking about?
> You're certainly not trying to suggest that there is significant WiFi/Wimax
> coverage, OR that the cellphone network provides the infrastructure for
> video, right?

I'm saying this:

1. WiFi is readily available in many communities for free. Earthlink,
Google, etc. are working to expand this. There is more WIFI access
than XM WCS access today as we speak. Even here we have public Wifi in
various communities.
2. WiMax is becoming available, various companies are working on that
to have MANs set up. There is more WiMax test sites available than XM
WCS today.
3. Cellular is going 3G, in some markets already has using
modifications of their current bands. They will be adding more bands
(1700/2100) which will result from spectrum auctions. As we speak the
cell carriers can provide near-T1 (1.544mbit) speeds to your hands.
Some are providing streaming video and content. Some of this is
available today, ahead of XM WCS, and the 3G Spectrum auction will
probably happen before XM figures out what to do with WCS too.

The non-3G people can still get some video and streaming audio content
but, yeah, certainly it's not ideal. My setup lets me watch shows
though for free and I have no expectations of it though. If you
consider how horrible a mp3 sounds, and the fact that people still both
buy and steal them, the average consumer has low expectations of a lot
of things.

Lets face it, XM is going to have stiff competition by the time they
have any concept of what they're doing with these licenses.

> How about you explain what you're talking about?

Done.

> Sure, I can find hotspots, too. But it takes a lot more than this to
> deliver video to a significant number of customers.

Not a hotspot. I was using bluetooth to my Sony cell phone. I pay for
unlimited data to T-mobile each month.

> The thing that presents the problem is that someone has to pay for the
> bandwidth and that's been tried and failed. Let me know when a business
> model exists other than what XM has to offer.

See remarks above about Earthlink, Google, and WiMax WANs. I pay 19.99
a month for my unlimited data though with VPN access. I assure you
that's an easy price to pay considering I can throw the phone on the
table and get on the net with my Powerbook 30 seconds later, even in
Northern VT where XM has no coverage.

> Who is talking about in a car. That's a very limited market.

That's where 90+% of XM's customers are enjoying XM Radio. XM's also
talked about the car too.

> XM will be partnering with DirecTV. Watch.

That's all well and good. Sirius has a sat TV partner too. But it may
or may not mean a damned thing.

> Well, neither stock is performing worth a damn. So, is that your measuring
> stick?

Damn right it is. I'm getting tired of you making disparaging comments
when XM's sky is falling equally if not moreso compared to Sirius.

> Oh, bull----.

I realize down there in the sticks you don't have 3G data. Maybe you
need to come up into the other metro markets, yknow NY and MA.

> Don't be a fucking idiot. That analyst was talking out his ass. Nobody who
> knows ANYTHING about this business suspects a million, a halfmillion, or
> even a quarter million were built. If they built 50K it would be very
> surprising.

Hey his words are much more valuable than yours. All that comes out of
your mouth is nonsense.

> To be honest, I think XM has moved past the glassmount. They are now
> focusing on stealth, diversity units that eliminate the need for any visible
> device on the car at all. Where is Sirius on THAT?

I don't see Stealth or Diversity units on all these GMs on the lots
here.

> No, I understand that great technology doesn't equate to financial success.
> But I do know a little about finance, and I can tell you there is a reason
> that every credible broker rates XM higher than Sirius.

You 'know a little about finance' because you say such, not because
you've ever proven your credentials. Taking you 'at your word' would
be foolish.

> They are NOT selling subs for $3 a month and the hardware they are giving
> away can be given away and still cost the company less than what Sirius is
> selling at full price costs Sirius...

Bull----. If people call in and say they're going to cancel XM is
practically giving them the world to stay.

The 'hardware they're giving away' hurt them very hard in Q4 and STILL
resulted in not hitting the guidance that THEY upped. You're splitting
----hairs. These radios cost actual dollars and YOU know they do.

> You've yet to admit you're wrong about anything and you're not going to
> start now. You and Doberman are just alike in that respect.

I've admitted I was wrong in many things, go back and look. However,
Doberman is a great individual, much moreso than you are, so for you to
put me in the same class as him is nothing short of an honor.

--D

[Al Franken]

Sirius has never had a problem with repeaters since I started looking
in this NG:

Sirius sucks this.....HooHoo sucks that.....

over and over and over and over again....

[ThirdNormalForm]

>
> No bugs here. I'm sure other people have isolated situations with
> theirs but mine doesn't crash, freeze, hang up, etc. It just happens
> to work. I've come out and said they do need to fix the bugs that
> happen to multiple people, I've never said otherwise.
>
> However, with this in mind, MANY problems people have are either
> feature requests or they're situations that have to do with their
> computer. If you visit SBS at all still, you'll find the latter I
> spend a fair deal of time each day handling. I don't expect Sirius to
> be in the IT Support business.

The list at SBS is comprehensive and confirmed; these are not isolated
events, and you know it. The fact that you, as a user, haven't seen a
particular bug does not mean that bug doesn't exist. A robust software
development process eliminates errant pointers and memory leaks and
allocation problems that are responsible for lockups and similar problems.
I refer you to the excellent treatise on the subject, "Writing Solid Code"
by Steve Maguire. And while you're at it, you may want to check out
"Software For Use", by Constantine and Lockwood, which will convey to you
why the missing features shouldn't have been missing in the first place.
The device was hurried to market; anyone with substantial software
development experience can spot the symptoms a mile away. I'm sure the next
one will be better. If they don't hurry IT to market as well.

> And where's this map you speak of? Also do you know what a NIMBY is?
> Better yet, do you realize how many towers on 1900mhz are needed to
> cover from ME to MA, let alone cover outward? As the frequency goes
> up, the same power signal goes less.

The map is available at the FCC website. What you shouldl realize is that
were XM to partner with Cingular and BellSouth, there would complete
coverage of the CONUS. XM has an existing relationship with Cingular,
although, to date, the relationship has evolved publicly as some of us
expected. We don't know what is going on behind the scenes, however. It is
pretty easy to envision XM giving up a piece of the Spectrum it owns in
exchange for a piece of the spectrum owned by Cing. & BellSouth, however.
So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that coverage is limited.

As to towers, most will be colocated. The spectrum is 2.3GHz, not 1.9GHz.
And the solution to the signal loss is more power, which XM and WCS have
applied for.

> I didn't realize XM really wanted to get hot and heavy into the
> terrestrial microwave business. This is looking more and more like a
> bad investment all the time.
>

This argument is without logic, at all -- I have often heard it, and it
reeks of the same kind of non-thinking that caused the collapse of the Penn
Central (I'm sure you covered it in your graduate Business Policy course).
XM properly recognizes that its "product" is the content and how it is
delivered is secondary to the end user. Who cares whether the delivery is
by WCS bandwidth or by satellites?

>
> Available, so they can put up more infrastructure for a pipe dream.
> Like I said, glad I'm not an XM shareholder having to foot the bill for
> all this. I have family in the cellular industry and know the costs
> and prep involved in throwing up telecom towers and racks.
>

The "bill" is not that great. The $200M in stock is far and away the worst
of it. But it is totally ignorant to suggest that substantially increasing
the company's ability to deliver a product to consumers is not a good idea.

This is like telling JB Hunt he has too many trucks.


> Like I said I'd love to see the map. However, I'd definitely not want
> to be one to pay for it. Having the licenses does not mean they'll be
> building either, it just means they can, barring the other situations
> going on with putting up structures and racks.

I'm not at liberty to distribute the information I have on it; while it is
publicly available, it is someone's work product.

Sure, they may choose not to build out the entire network. Neither you nor
I know what their precise plans are. If I had to guess, they would do a
city-by-city rollout of video, starting small, to see how the market
evolves. That would be smart.

I will say this. Sirius is fighting XM tooth-and-nail over this, so the
people at Sirius certainly consider it to be a threat. The NAB is fighting
it hard, as well.


> I'm saying this:
>
> 1. WiFi is readily available in many communities for free. Earthlink,
> Google, etc. are working to expand this. There is more WIFI access
> than XM WCS access today as we speak. Even here we have public Wifi in
> various communities.

And it isn't being used. We certainly have it in our downtown area as well,
where tourism is the basic commodity. But let's be clear -- this is, in no
way, similar to providing ubiquitious coverage with substantial bandwidth.
While our National Park area is covered, it is covered with 3.0mbps total --
not enough bandwidth to do any of the things you're talking about if there
is significant demand for it. And I don't know about where you live, but
the city I live in isn't about to start providing T3s at no charge. Isn't
going to happen. Here, or likely where you live, as well. Somebody has to
pay for the bandwidth.

> 2. WiMax is becoming available, various companies are working on that
> to have MANs set up. There is more WiMax test sites available than XM
> WCS today.

Yes, Wimax will happen, but one need only look at the sparseness of the
cellphone network to see what to expect for a while. I did some FORTRAN
programming on the project for the original planning of the US cellphone
network in 1978/1979. 25 years later there are still substantial regions
without adequate coverage. Wimax is going to be the same thing.
Furthermore, it is still unclear who is going to pay for the bandwidth. And
there are tons of other issues still to be resolved. There will be massive
congestion in urban areas and sparse usage (and sparse bandwidth
availability) in remote areas.

Wimax will threaten SDARS before it threatens any video applications. And
that isn't in the cards anytime soon, either.

> 3. Cellular is going 3G, in some markets already has using
> modifications of their current bands. They will be adding more bands
> (1700/2100) which will result from spectrum auctions. As we speak the
> cell carriers can provide near-T1 (1.544mbit) speeds to your hands.
> Some are providing streaming video and content. Some of this is
> available today, ahead of XM WCS, and the 3G Spectrum auction will
> probably happen before XM figures out what to do with WCS too.

I know they are able to deliver peak rates of 2Mbps, but sustained rates are
well below T1 rates as far as I'm aware. But that isn't even the problem.
The problem is who is going to pay for it?

Your argument is specious and contradictory, though -- if it is such a great
business, then XM will hold key spectrum that can be used for the same kind
of service. Spectrum, the truly limited/scarce resource in this business.

> The non-3G people can still get some video and streaming audio content
> but, yeah, certainly it's not ideal. My setup lets me watch shows
> though for free and I have no expectations of it though. If you
> consider how horrible a mp3 sounds, and the fact that people still both
> buy and steal them, the average consumer has low expectations of a lot
> of things.
>
> Lets face it, XM is going to have stiff competition by the time they
> have any concept of what they're doing with these licenses.
>

XM is well beyond the "concept" stage for this bandwidth. Once again, I
refer you to CES.


> > Sure, I can find hotspots, too. But it takes a lot more than this to
> > deliver video to a significant number of customers.
>
> Not a hotspot. I was using bluetooth to my Sony cell phone. I pay for
> unlimited data to T-mobile each month.

That's fine. It simply isn't going to be delivering any real, substantive
content anytime soon.


> See remarks above about Earthlink, Google, and WiMax WANs. I pay 19.99
> a month for my unlimited data though with VPN access. I assure you
> that's an easy price to pay considering I can throw the phone on the
> table and get on the net with my Powerbook 30 seconds later, even in
> Northern VT where XM has no coverage.

XM has coverage in Northern VT.


> > XM will be partnering with DirecTV. Watch.
>
> That's all well and good. Sirius has a sat TV partner too. But it may
> or may not mean a damned thing.

Who? Dish?

>
> Damn right it is. I'm getting tired of you making disparaging comments
> when XM's sky is falling equally if not moreso compared to Sirius.

You've said time and again you don't care about the stock. Yes, pretty much
all the competent analysts have stated that the valuations are out of whack
on the two stocks, and I've said that since they hired Stern. Sirius is a
$3 stock selling for $5. XM should be at $35 or $40.

I've not said EITHER company's sky is falling -- I have simply stated, time
and again, that the Stern deal was a horrible business deal for Sirius, and
I'm being proven right as XM has retaken the retail lead of late. I have
also clearly stated, time and again, that Clayton almost destroyed Sirius
and Karmizan has his work cut out for him to turn the ship around. XM has
its problems as well -- mostly in not stepping up to take care of the
marketing. But XM is outperforming Sirius financially, and it isn't close.
Yes, both look like ---- right now -- but XM is in a much better place
because of its technology lead, better OEM deals, and IMO, much more
intelligent content acquisitions.

If you want to disagree, that's fine. But my message has been consistent,
and I believe you will see me proven right in the end. Of course, when SIRI
is back to $3 and XM is at $35 or $40, I'm sure you'll be claiming it is a
BFD that doesn't matter.

>
> I realize down there in the sticks you don't have 3G data. Maybe you
> need to come up into the other metro markets, yknow NY and MA.

No, thanks.

>
> Hey his words are much more valuable than yours. All that comes out of
> your mouth is nonsense.

If you think Sirius built a million S50s, I think it is clear who is talking
nonsense.

> I don't see Stealth or Diversity units on all these GMs on the lots
> here.

These things are planned years in advance. The Sigma antenna was an okay
solution for Sirius -- but there is a performance penalty associated with
it, and Sirius can ill-afford performance degradation in its antennas.


> You 'know a little about finance' because you say such, not because
> you've ever proven your credentials. Taking you 'at your word' would
> be foolish.

I have no obligation to "prove my creditials" to you -- I proved my
credentials when I took The Test in 1980, and that's all that is required.

>
> Bull----. If people call in and say they're going to cancel XM is
> practically giving them the world to stay.

Like all smart subscription businesses, XM has a strong retention department
which can give someone an enticement to stay. You should know that Sirius
WILL do the same, once they get on top of the problem.

I recommend you go take a course in managerial accounting. Perhaps then you
can begin to comprehend why it makes sense to give people who are cancelling
a better deal sometimes.

That said, there are no $3/month subs to XM -- that would not cover variable
costs -- anyone who claims it is lying through their teeth. I suspect
$7/month is doable given the right circumstances.

> The 'hardware they're giving away' hurt them very hard in Q4 and STILL
> resulted in not hitting the guidance that THEY upped. You're splitting
> ----hairs. These radios cost actual dollars and YOU know they do.

XM can buy RoadyXTs dirt cheap. If you were thinking $30 you would be on
the high side. Anytime XM can add a subscriber at a total cost of $30 I'm
for it.

>
> I've admitted I was wrong in many things, go back and look. However,
> Doberman is a great individual, much moreso than you are, so for you to
> put me in the same class as him is nothing short of an honor.
>

I have no personal issue with Doberman. For the most part, I have found him
to be one of the most courteous and respectful people posting on these
subjects; he seldom, if ever, gets into the mud like so many of you. And I
have enjoyed speaking with him on the phone numerous times. I certainly
wasn't suggesting you're in that category personally.

But I don't agree with Dobie on many of these subjects. And even when he is
wrong he is not able to admit it. Still, personally, I have found him to be
well above the average poster (including me) in his ability to avoid the
name-calling and inappropriate behavior so common around these parts.

[Dr. Droo]

ThirdNormalForm wrote:
> The list at SBS is comprehensive and confirmed; these are not isolated
> events, and you know it. The fact that you, as a user, haven't seen a
> particular bug does not mean that bug doesn't exist. A robust software
> development process eliminates errant pointers and memory leaks and
> allocation problems that are responsible for lockups and similar problems.

There are plenty of people who aren't experiencing problems too. This
is a QA issue, there's no doubt about that. Software is only part of
it, otherwise we'd be able to reproduce the same problems on every
unit. That's purely not the case.

> I'm sure the next one will be better. If they don't hurry IT to market as well.

I'm hoping that they will use someone else to produce the product that
has more time in the field. I don't know of Humax producing any
handheld multimedia product until this unit.

Not to say I don't like Humax, just that I think IRiver, Cowon, etc.
would've been better picks.

> The map is available at the FCC website. What you shouldl realize is that
> were XM to partner with Cingular and BellSouth, there would complete
> coverage of the CONUS.

Cingular doesn't have coverage in most of ME NH VT. So no they
wouldn't..

> So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that coverage is limited.

Get a Cingular 'native' coverage map sometime, not using roaming
partners. You'll see what I see. They'll cover more people than
throwing some towers and racks in some metro areas, but still missing
out in many places. Also see other remarks regarding coverage and
peoples general happiness with cellular carriers (which doesn't exist,
it's more like toleration).

> As to towers, most will be colocated. The spectrum is 2.3GHz, not 1.9GHz.
> And the solution to the signal loss is more power, which XM and WCS have
> applied for.

More power still doesn't help with obstructions, it does help with the
loss however by moving up the spectrum.

> XM properly recognizes that its "product" is the content and how it is
> delivered is secondary to the end user. Who cares whether the delivery is
> by WCS bandwidth or by satellites?

People will care because said content won't be available in the same
way that the existing content is. The issue is reliability and
availability. If XM has to provide a MAP to show where these services
are (And in the situations you list with cellular carrier partnerships,
etc, that'd still happen), there will be a stigma attached to them. It
is assumed that satellite radio is going to be available anywhere most
of the time. This is definitely not the case with terrestrial based
microwave services. Go anywhere and look at how many people check
their signal on their cell to make sure they can even get or make a
call in the course of each day.

> The "bill" is not that great. The $200M in stock is far and away the worst
> of it. But it is totally ignorant to suggest that substantially increasing
> the company's ability to deliver a product to consumers is not a good idea.

Again, offering a different product using different means with
different restrictions.

> I'm not at liberty to distribute the information I have on it; while it is
> publicly available, it is someone's work product.

So be it. I would protect my materials in the same manner.

> Sure, they may choose not to build out the entire network. Neither you nor
> I know what their precise plans are. If I had to guess, they would do a
> city-by-city rollout of video, starting small, to see how the market
> evolves. That would be smart.

Absolutely that would make sense, but if they wait too long, there will
already be video in these places using other means. Look at the DVB-H
craze overseas that's started up.

> I will say this. Sirius is fighting XM tooth-and-nail over this, so the
> people at Sirius certainly consider it to be a threat. The NAB is fighting
> it hard, as well.

The NAB, at best, can prevent XM from providing localized content
(advertising, etc.). I don't envision them really getting things
completely shutdown.

Sirius really wants more national spectrum they can put up on sats.
Just so happens they're arguing that XM has WCS as an attempt to do
that. It's, as you have remarked before I believe, a weak argument.

[On MANs, Wifi, etc.]
> And it isn't being used.

They're still evolving it in many of the places I mention. They're
definitely using it in the places here. It saves them having to pay
for Tmobile Hotspot at 9$ or 6$ an hour.

> where tourism is the basic commodity. But let's be clear -- this is, in no
> way, similar to providing ubiquitious coverage with substantial bandwidth.

Again, this is as possible if not moreso on 3G Cellular.

> While our National Park area is covered, it is covered with 3.0mbps total --
> not enough bandwidth to do any of the things you're talking about if there
> is significant demand for it. And I don't know about where you live, but
> the city I live in isn't about to start providing T3s at no charge.

No T3s here for free, but 20mbit/1mbit DSL is 59.95 using ADSL2+.
Fiber optics will be here soon and you'll be able to get 15/2 for less
money without distance issue. The technology is evolving. I pay a
reasonable fee for my commercial connection. I'm sure you've done some
digging around and seen where I'm coming from for net access. You
should also check DSLReports for speed checks from my ISP. People are
getting more or less what they're paying for.

> Isn't
> going to happen. Here, or likely where you live, as well. Somebody has to
> pay for the bandwidth.

Bandwidth is getting cheaper. See above. Paying 20$ a month for
unlimited cellular net access is one of the easiest bills each month.

> Yes, Wimax will happen, but one need only look at the sparseness of the
> cellphone network to see what to expect for a while.

I don't dispute that, but WCS isn't going to be providing more
accessibility than cell phones. The cell networks are taking huge
advantage of roaming on smaller carriers (VErizon/Sprint with US
Cellular and Alltel, Tmobile and Cingular with RCCUnicel, Dobson,
Centennial, etc.). Here Tmobile and Cingular rely heavily on
RCC/Unicel (as they do in AL/MS), a cell carrier of about 720K
customers nationwide, 400K in this region. Unicel owns their own
towers and won't be letting XM (or anyone) put racks on them either.
US Cellular does similar here and owns their own structures as well as
racks.

> 25 years later there are still substantial regions
> without adequate coverage.

The age of tangible coverage for the individual is much less time. We
just got into the inexpensive phones and tangible minute plans in the
last decade. They also went from mostly 3 watt folks, to 0.6 watt
handheld folks. There's little incentive to put structures and racks
up for places where people don't live and just travel through either.

I do believe that with WCS they're going to see things the same way.
You'll have XM coverage for radio but no WCS coverage for your other
services while going down the road to Grandmas.

> Wimax is going to be the same thing.

Of course, any terrestrial based service is going to be the same thing.
Look at Skytel and those paging carriers previously. They couldn't
even get one-way coverage right.

> Furthermore, it is still unclear who is going to pay for the bandwidth.

If it's anything like how MANs/public Wifi are done in some places
here, it'll be a flat rate.

> And there are tons of other issues still to be resolved.

There are probably other issues yet to be resolved with XM's WCS plans
too. The Wimax folks are largely waiting for product to put up. The
cellular companies are waiting for a spectrum auction.

> There will be massive
> congestion in urban areas and sparse usage (and sparse bandwidth
> availability) in remote areas.

Congestion is usually solved by 'more cells', like the cell carriers
do. Cable companies do it in the same way 'more nodes'. There are
ways to solve repetition and congestion if you're effectively being a
broadcaster.

As for bandwidth in the infrastructure - There's plenty of bandwidth
available to help supplement the DSL and Cable craze of the last few
years. New technologies in the distribution platforms they're using
for that (better fiber modulation, etc.) will help make more available.
Even in Northern OK they can get a decent speed DSL connection for a
relatively reasonable amount of money.

But with things like streaming video there's always multicasting and
other things along those lines.

> Wimax will threaten SDARS before it threatens any video applications. And
> that isn't in the cards anytime soon, either.

I don't think these companies care about radio because they'll have the
potential to provide services that the existing Satellite Radio
services can't. If cellular carriers want more bandwidth, they band
together and whine to the FCC.

> I know they are able to deliver peak rates of 2Mbps, but sustained rates are
> well below T1 rates as far as I'm aware. But that isn't even the problem.
> The problem is who is going to pay for it?

Verizon's EVDO service does around a steady rate of 400-600kbit down in
its current revision.

I think you'll find people are already getting 'talked into' getting
VCast for ~15 a month. They're trying to make it so data to the phone
is the big deal and phone service is merely one segment. Right now on
2G networks the data channels are sucking up 4 voice channels. They
want the inverse.

> Your argument is specious and contradictory, though -- if it is such a great
> business, then XM will hold key spectrum that can be used for the same kind
> of service. Spectrum, the truly limited/scarce resource in this business.

Cellular companies are more likely to get bandwidth that they petition
for than XM would. There's more of them and it's more in the public
interest. Sure, it'd make XM a nice chunk of change to sell what they
have to a cellular company. I'm in favor of that compared to becoming
a terrestrial microwave carrier. XM needs to pay back the debt load,
Sirius most certainly does too.

> XM is well beyond the "concept" stage for this bandwidth. Once again, I
> refer you to CES.

Sirius showed video at CES as well. Where is it? I don't see it.
People show things at CES all the time that I look around for but don't
see, or they come later.

I'm really a bigger fan of the way Apple does things. "Here it is and
it's available now on apple.com.." "Here it is and it'll be out next
Thursday".

> That's fine. It simply isn't going to be delivering any real, substantive
> content anytime soon.

Content is what I make of it right now (whatever's on the net) as it
would be if I had a faster connection. It's in TMobile's interest to
give me incentive to want content from them instead. That's what
Verizon and Sprint have figured out. Verizon and Sprint have figured
out that it's cheaper/easier for them to sell you a song than have
radio stations too.

I'd REALLY be interested to know how many subscribers MobiTV has. They
don't seem to mention this on their web page though.

> XM has coverage in Northern VT.

Again, 'where XM doesn't have coverage'. There are several places they
do not have coverage in Northern NH and VT. I didn't say the whole
state. I have also told you you should come up and see for yourself.
There are mountains and hills that obstruct XM's signal.

> Who? Dish?

Yep. Look at Echostar's accolades in the other thread by David from
the other day. Charlie Ergen has a pretty big interest in innovation.

> You've said time and again you don't care about the stock. Yes, pretty much
> all the competent analysts have stated that the valuations are out of whack
> on the two stocks, and I've said that since they hired Stern. Sirius is a
> $3 stock selling for $5. XM should be at $35 or $40.

I don't care about the stock, I care very much about your remarks when
it comes to a company keeping the other guy in check. If there were no
Sirius, or there were no XM, this arena would be quite a bit different.

It seems Sirius is a ~5$ stock and XM is a ~ 22$ stock. You can't sell
on what you feel it is while it