Re: How do they call from a number that is not in service? [Archive]

Dr. Droo

June 9th, 2006, 08:00 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> Last time I checked XM still had substantially more subscribers than Sirius.
> In addition, XM will lose half the money this year Sirius will.

Substantially? The gap narrows more each day. Sirius now has about
2/3rd the subscribers of XM. The gap of 1/3rd is not all that
substantial, especially compared to previous years. Sirius still has
yet to really evolve their OEM program either, a program which has
certainly contributed to XM's sub-count.

The difference here is how much the tide seems to have changed. XM's
remarks don't seem to radiate the same confidence they used to.
Meanwhile it seems that Sirius is energized when it comes to presenting
at conferences. That's certainly different from when XM's confidence
was higher and Sirius's was lower. I attribute Sirius's confidence
raise to the fact that Mel's plans have started to take effect. I will
continue to watch that evolution going forward.

As for monies that it'll cost this year - Certainly, cash burn is a
problem. However, I do believe ultimately that the end will justify
the means. It is apparant that Mel has a game plan and is continuing
to activate it. Obviously, Mel feels Sirius will succeed, seeing as he
continues to buy up blocks of stock in cash, whenever permitted. You
can say what you will about Sirius, but Mel certainly wouldn't be
buying these blocks of shares if he felt the company was going to crash
and burn.

I'd really like to see that kind of confidence from the executives at
XM. I think anyone who owns XM stock (I'm not one of them) would like
to as well. Either way, I hope they find their groove in the track
again before the 4th quarter hits.

--D

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 9th, 2006, 08:59 AM

>
> Substantially? The gap narrows more each day. Sirius now has about
> 2/3rd the subscribers of XM. The gap of 1/3rd is not all that
> substantial, especially compared to previous years. Sirius still has
> yet to really evolve their OEM program either, a program which has
> certainly contributed to XM's sub-count.

It is more like "a little over half" when you take out the parking lot subs
Sirius counts. But still, they've done great.

> The difference here is how much the tide seems to have changed. XM's
> remarks don't seem to radiate the same confidence they used to.

These things are dynamic. While the momentum now is clearly with Sirius at
this instant, Sirius continues to face major hurdles:

- Why are they having to launch another satellite? Are they going to be
able to deliver a workable wearable device without it (if they can't have
true wearable before 2008, they're recent gains are likely to be
short-lived). Or, is it necessary as a precondition to implementing H/M?
One thing is clear -- there is SOME REASON they are choosing to spend $300
Million -- they're not doing it for the hell of it.

- XM's recent cut in guidance has nothing to do with the popularity of the
product.

> Meanwhile it seems that Sirius is energized when it comes to presenting
> at conferences. That's certainly different from when XM's confidence
> was higher and Sirius's was lower. I attribute Sirius's confidence
> raise to the fact that Mel's plans have started to take effect. I will
> continue to watch that evolution going forward.

Mel has done a fantastic job for Sirius. As I stated back in '02 and '03,
SIRI's biggest problem was they had no management. Mel brought them that.

But if you think SIRI's problems are anywhere near over you have another
think coming.

> As for monies that it'll cost this year - Certainly, cash burn is a
> problem. However, I do believe ultimately that the end will justify
> the means. It is apparant that Mel has a game plan and is continuing
> to activate it. Obviously, Mel feels Sirius will succeed, seeing as he
> continues to buy up blocks of stock in cash, whenever permitted. You
> can say what you will about Sirius, but Mel certainly wouldn't be
> buying these blocks of shares if he felt the company was going to crash
> and burn.
>

Actually, cash burn isn't that much of a problem for either company right
now. What IS a problem (for both, but much more for Sirius) is the huge net
losses they are generating. These are real dollars going out the door;
while Mel has done a great job of deemphasizing the 1.1-1.2 Billion loss
they're going to deliver, it is a huge problem.

The spending of another $300M plus adding repeaters should be a concern, as
well.

The bottom line is that Sirius continues to be a massively troubled company,
but the markets don't have the gumption to recognize it. Sirius
shareholders are largely uninformed retail investors who know nothing about
the company.

> I'd really like to see that kind of confidence from the executives at
> XM. I think anyone who owns XM stock (I'm not one of them) would like
> to as well. Either way, I hope they find their groove in the track
> again before the 4th quarter hits.

XM's confidence will be back. They continue to be the industry leader and
that isn't about to change anytime soon.

Dr. Droo

June 9th, 2006, 09:00 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> These things are dynamic. While the momentum now is clearly with Sirius at
> this instant, Sirius continues to face major hurdles:

Both companies will face hurdles for a long time to come, probably
permanently, just different ones. It'll always be, 'how can we get
more customers' or 'how can we introduce more things'.

> - Why are they having to launch another satellite? Are they going to be
> able to deliver a workable wearable device without it (if they can't have
> true wearable before 2008, they're recent gains are likely to be
> short-lived). Or, is it necessary as a precondition to implementing H/M?
> One thing is clear -- there is SOME REASON they are choosing to spend $300
> Million -- they're not doing it for the hell of it.

I think there's a couple reasons here:

1> Increase coverage for those who have stationary signal issues.
2> Increase robustness of the infrastructure. Right now a satellite
failure could cost them some 8 hours a day of lessened or no-signal
depending on location.
3> Potentially other features that are not disclosed.

I don't think they just dreamed this up. I think it was something that
they've been mulling over for a while. They've determined that it
would benefit them to do so. I agree.

I do think the wearable is coming this year on schedule. However, I
think even with this satellite in the sky that things like WiFi
Failover is a great idea. There are plenty of places that people can't
get a signal with XM's wearables. These same places that people perhaps
can't get a cellular signal either. It's definitely likely that these
places have a WiFi network.

> - XM's recent cut in guidance has nothing to do with the popularity of the
> product.

Popularity has to convert to subs in order for it to be beneficial to
XM as a company.

I see the Sirius ads (Including the new Radio Shack one) on a variety
of stations, such as Comedy Central. I've seen XM's Inno/Helix ad,
which is good, but with less frequency. XM needs to have a
comprehensive marketing plan. There's still a ton of people who don't
know/care about Satellite Radio.

> But if you think SIRI's problems are anywhere near over you have another
> think coming.

I didn't say they were over. They won't be for either company unless
the company vanishes probably. It'll always be about 'doing more'.
However, XM definitely seems to have a lot more problems than Sirius
does at the moment. Sirius's problems are largely pre-existing.

> Actually, cash burn isn't that much of a problem for either company right
> now. What IS a problem (for both, but much more for Sirius) is the huge net
> losses they are generating. These are real dollars going out the door;
> while Mel has done a great job of deemphasizing the 1.1-1.2 Billion loss
> they're going to deliver, it is a huge problem.

Cash burn is always a problem as long as they're not making enough
money. It'll be less of an issue as time progresses on and they are
able to pay their bills as well as work down this debt.

> The spending of another $300M plus adding repeaters should be a concern, as
> well.

I think the benefits outshine the cost with that situation. The street
majority probably feel the same way. If you don't increase the
robustness of your infrastructure, in the event of failure, you lose
your customers. Sirius has a ground spare, but it takes roughly a
month (on the good side) to get that spare strapped to a rocket and
launched. Neither company can afford that.

> The bottom line is that Sirius continues to be a massively troubled company,
> but the markets don't have the gumption to recognize it.

XM is a troubled company too. Again, seemingly moreso than Sirius is
in current view. Let's not forget that XM was around 30$ in Nov 2005,
and now they're around 13. They've shaved off half a million
subscribers from their guidance and they didn't make EOY guidance until
a week or so into Q1 2006.

They now have almost 15 lawsuits against them, and I'm hearing rumors
of potentially more on another topic. Sure, the merits of these
lawsuits are in question, especially seeing as it looks like one jumped
on and the others piled on top of them. But, it does still mean that
XM has to commit resources to providing a defense.

> XM's confidence will be back. They continue to be the industry leader and
> that isn't about to change anytime soon.

It seems they are less of a leader now than they were a year or two
ago. I'm hoping for a management change. I don't think I'm the only
one with that hope either.

--D

BaJoRi

June 9th, 2006, 09:00 AM

"Scott en Aztlán" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2lph829j05gqnue8a4end0h1appbah0blu@4ax.com...
> On 8 Jun 2006 19:08:04 -0700, "Bad Brad"
> <this.is.my.spam.magnet@EarthLink.net> wrote:
>
>> 815/754-9656 is part of XM Satellite Radio, Inc.'s marketing
>>department. They call former subscribers from this line trying to
>>induce them to re-subscribe. If you try to call them back on this line
>>you get a recording saying "The number you have reached is not in
>>service. This is a recording."
>>
>> I canceled my subscription more than a year ago. Every couple of
>>months they call me again. Each time I ask them to permanently remove
>>me from their call list. Each time they promise they will. They just
>>called again a few hours ago.
>
> XM is in a world of hurt right now. They went from being the
> hands-down leader in satellite radio to playing second fiddle to
> Sirius (thanks in large part to Howard Stern). Badgering people to
> resubscribe is just the latest in a series of desperation moves on
> XM's part which will ultimately backfire and do them more harm than
> good (letting their "stars" Opie & Anthony go back to terrestrial
> radio was another).
>
>>Next time they call I plan to stick it to them!!
>
> You had better hurry. At the rate things are going, they might not be
> around much longer. :)

Actually, if your name is on the national "DO NOT CALL" list, and they
persist in telemarketing (3 months os the limit for calling, after service
has ended. If it has been a year, by law, they are not allowed to call you
any more if you ask not to be called) calls to you, then you can file a
complaint, and possibly collect money from it, upwards of 10 grand.

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 9th, 2006, 10:30 AM

>
> Both companies will face hurdles for a long time to come, probably
> permanently, just different ones. It'll always be, 'how can we get
> more customers' or 'how can we introduce more things'.
>

Well, the big hurdle both face is churn. At 1.5% with 10M subs, you have to
add 150K/month to stay even.

> I think there's a couple reasons here:
>
> 1> Increase coverage for those who have stationary signal issues.
> 2> Increase robustness of the infrastructure. Right now a satellite
> failure could cost them some 8 hours a day of lessened or no-signal
> depending on location.
> 3> Potentially other features that are not disclosed.
>
> I don't think they just dreamed this up. I think it was something that
> they've been mulling over for a while. They've determined that it
> would benefit them to do so. I agree.
>
> I do think the wearable is coming this year on schedule. However, I
> think even with this satellite in the sky that things like WiFi
> Failover is a great idea. There are plenty of places that people can't
> get a signal with XM's wearables. These same places that people perhaps
> can't get a cellular signal either. It's definitely likely that these
> places have a WiFi network.

I think they have no choice -- they MUST deliver the wearable this year. I
think it will likely slide some more, however -- I'm getting the sense Late
Summer may be off at this point. I cannot imagine they will go through
another XMAS season without one.

The WiFi is bull----. There simply isn't any significant WiFi reception.
This is a marketing gimmick. A few years from now, well, maybe. Right now,
I would really be concerned about the battery drain. At any rate, it is a
fairly useless "feature" at this point. But it does serve the purpose of
generating marketing hype, which is what Sirius has been running on for two
years. And it is working for them.

>
> Popularity has to convert to subs in order for it to be beneficial to
> XM as a company.

When you are on the "bleeding edge" and pushing the limits, which XM is
doing, you're going to have some misfires. It is unfortunate for XM, but
they've had one. It is going to cost them dearly as the shelves go bare
over the next few weeks.

> I see the Sirius ads (Including the new Radio Shack one) on a variety
> of stations, such as Comedy Central. I've seen XM's Inno/Helix ad,
> which is good, but with less frequency. XM needs to have a
> comprehensive marketing plan. There's still a ton of people who don't
> know/care about Satellite Radio.

No sense advertising product you don't have to sell.

> I didn't say they were over. They won't be for either company unless
> the company vanishes probably. It'll always be about 'doing more'.
> However, XM definitely seems to have a lot more problems than Sirius
> does at the moment. Sirius's problems are largely pre-existing.

If you just look at the surface, I can see how you conclude this. But if
you really comprehend what is going on with both businesses, there is more
to it.

You say SIRI's problems are "pre-existing", and there is some truth to it.
The reality? SIRI's problems are systemic -- they have screwed up their
cost structure to the point where it will take several years to straighten
it out.

XM's are a blip in the road, other than the marketing issue. The lawsuits
are bull---- and ALL (RIAA AND Shareholder) are without the slightest merit.
If one really looks at the two businesses, XM's business model is intact
while SIRI's has been hurt badly by poor financial performance.

>
> Cash burn is always a problem as long as they're not making enough
> money. It'll be less of an issue as time progresses on and they are
> able to pay their bills as well as work down this debt.

In XM's case, when they add a subscriber they receive sufficient cash to
offset the cost of adding the subscriber. Cash burn isn't a problem.

Sirius still has a pretty big problem, but they have used a lot of equity to
mitigate the cash burn issues somewhat (in effect, they're burning the
shareholders' cash rather than the company's cash).

> I think the benefits outshine the cost with that situation. The street
> majority probably feel the same way. If you don't increase the
> robustness of your infrastructure, in the event of failure, you lose
> your customers. Sirius has a ground spare, but it takes roughly a
> month (on the good side) to get that spare strapped to a rocket and
> launched. Neither company can afford that.

Uh, yes, I think I was telling you guys that a year ago when I described the
immensely high-risk position Sirius was in, and frankly, CONTINUES to be in
for another 2-3 years.

>
> XM is a troubled company too. Again, seemingly moreso than Sirius is
> in current view. Let's not forget that XM was around 30$ in Nov 2005,
> and now they're around 13. They've shaved off half a million
> subscribers from their guidance and they didn't make EOY guidance until
> a week or so into Q1 2006.

Xm's trouble is limited to its marketing failure. This should be easily
cured. Share price is what it is ... $14 is ridiculously cheap for XM,
while $5 is too high for Sirius. This situation will not persist
indefinitely.

> They now have almost 15 lawsuits against them, and I'm hearing rumors
> of potentially more on another topic. Sure, the merits of these
> lawsuits are in question, especially seeing as it looks like one jumped
> on and the others piled on top of them. But, it does still mean that
> XM has to commit resources to providing a defense.

They really have two suits -- the one from RIAA and a class action with a
number of ambulance chasers piling on (these attorneys haven't had to spend
any money yet). All of the class action suits will be combined into a
single legal action. It will be interesting to see whether XM is even
willing to settle with a SMALL payment to dispense with it.

The RIAA suit is just XM standing up to them, something Sirius didn't have
the guts to do. I think XM properly realizes the importance of keeping
costs under control, and realized they needed to make every effort to defeat
the extortion attempt. Because Sirius was in such a bind on the S50, they
had no real choice in the matter.

AS TO THE OTHER "SUIT" you're referring to, it isn't going to happen. There
were no misrepresentations involved, and frankly, even if the plaintiffs
WON, what would be the benefit? They damage the very company who owes them
money?

I'll become concerned when one of lawsuits seems to have some basis for its
existence. To date, neither the existing suits or the one that "may happen"
that you are referring to is anything more than an extortion attempt.

>
> It seems they are less of a leader now than they were a year or two
> ago.

Wouldn't you expect that? They had no competition a couple years ago;
Sirius was being horribly mismanaged and couldn't even meet its subscriber
targets after reducing them by 1/3. I don't know of anyone who didn't
expect Sirius to make some headway. After spending 3/4 billion on Stern, it
is reasonable to expect them to have made considerable progress.

But it has gone too far and XM's marketing people haven't gotten the job
done.

> I'm hoping for a management change. I don't think I'm the only
> one with that hope either.

I believe a "management change" at XM would be a disaster. They're
management is far better than SIRI's and it is tough to envision anyone
better. These people understand the business better than anyone.

They DO need to dump their marketing leadership, and I'm hopeful Steve Cook
will be history. Soon.

Dr. Droo

June 9th, 2006, 11:30 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> I think they have no choice -- they MUST deliver the wearable this year. I
> think it will likely slide some more, however -- I'm getting the sense Late
> Summer may be off at this point. I cannot imagine they will go through
> another XMAS season without one.

Everytyhing suggests it's still on in mid-summer so far. More
information regarding it is leaking and Sirius has released their other
units on time lately. Mel had one in hand at a conference.

I don't see why they would feel urge to delay, also seeing as they had
one working in Vegas down at the Bellagio during CES.

> The WiFi is bull----. There simply isn't any significant WiFi reception.

In peoples homes there most definitely is. I don't know too many
people even here that don't have a WiFi network in their home.

Realize the WiFi feature would be on TOP of Satellite reception
outdoors. It would not be the only method in which the unit could get
Satellite content.. That means you listen on the way to work, then you
walk into work and you can listen there.

A friend of mine works in IT Outsourcing in Southern CA. He expresses
his surprise when there ISN'T WiFi in an office. WiFi networks are
commonplace in the home and office, just not on light poles in the
city.

> This is a marketing gimmick.

Realize I'm not talking about the ZING unit that was demoed that has no
Satellite reception itself. I'm talking about the SW100. The Zing
device is an entirely different skew.

> When you are on the "bleeding edge" and pushing the limits, which XM is
> doing, you're going to have some misfires. It is unfortunate for XM, but
> they've had one. It is going to cost them dearly as the shelves go bare
> over the next few weeks.

It would make more sense to work hard at having a core that can pay the
bills before evolving things that could 'misfire'. Unfortunately,
neither company seems to be interested in doing things that way.

> No sense advertising product you don't have to sell.

Apparently they do, seeing as they're screwing up guidance and have had
a soft year.

> If you just look at the surface, I can see how you conclude this. But if
> you really comprehend what is going on with both businesses, there is more
> to it.

There is always more to things than on the surface. I'm sometimes
arguing based on how things look to people, not necessarily how they
are.

> You say SIRI's problems are "pre-existing", and there is some truth to it.
> The reality? SIRI's problems are systemic -- they have screwed up their
> cost structure to the point where it will take several years to straighten
> it out.

Or they will find other innovative ways to generate money. Sirius's
advertising dollars are certainly helping things in a positive way. If
they really wanted to they could have a limited collection of the old
Howard Stern material available online and sell advertising in the
player.

There are a LOT of things they could do to make money that they haven't
tried yet.

Raising the monthly is also a consideration, and one I think is likely
for both companies, but probably Sirius first.

> XM's are a blip in the road, other than the marketing issue. The lawsuits
> are bull---- and ALL (RIAA AND Shareholder) are without the slightest merit.
> If one really looks at the two businesses, XM's business model is intact
> while SIRI's has been hurt badly by poor financial performance.

The shareholder issue could've been taken care of if they were more
honest. Hugh isn't buying shares, he was ridding himself of them
knowing that XM was going to have a softer quarter. That's how it
looks, that's how it resonates.

> Uh, yes, I think I was telling you guys that a year ago when I described the
> immensely high-risk position Sirius was in, and frankly, CONTINUES to be in
> for another 2-3 years.

XM wouldn't have launched their additional satellites if they didn't
have a design issue that required them to do so. I appreciate the fact
Sirius has elected to go with a staggered approach to the situation
instead of just shooting more satellites up there.

> Xm's trouble is limited to its marketing failure. This should be easily
> cured. Share price is what it is ... $14 is ridiculously cheap for XM,
> while $5 is too high for Sirius. This situation will not persist
> indefinitely.

The market says otherwise, as do several analysts.

Your opinion is all well and good, but the market says XM is worth less
than half what it was worth in NOV 2005.

> The RIAA suit is just XM standing up to them

A fight which could ultimately cost XM more than just paying a per-unit
amount. Either way it's going to cost them in resources. See remarks
below about the legal system.

> and frankly, even if the plaintiffs
> WON, what would be the benefit? They damage the very company who owes them
> money?

Maybe the benefit would be a regime change with XM.

> I'll become concerned when one of lawsuits seems to have some basis for its
> existence. To date, neither the existing suits or the one that "may happen"
> that you are referring to is anything more than an extortion attempt.

They will get their day however. I don't have much faith in the legal
system to see logic. This is the same system that will let a burglar
sue a homeowner for falling off their roof and provide an extensive
payout to an idiot who spills coffee on themselves.

> Wouldn't you expect that?

Yes but Sirius could conceivably LAP XM in subscribers with the right
catalyst. Stern is merely one of those 'right catalysts'. There is a
lot of other great content that is or will be coming along for the
ride. There is a hugely positive energy within that company, one that
Stern more or less sparked.

XM's gain by being there first in several situations (Including the
wearable market) has earned them merely a moment by comparison. It's
like the guy in Guinness Book where he's written in and then someone
beats his record soon after. XM's catalyst has really been their
strides in content, things like "I want the MLB". It's the sole reason
why some friends of mine considered or have XM. The other reason I've
seen a lot of has been 'it came with the car'.

Not to say people won't buy the Inno or the Helix, but if they weren't
offered I don't think it would really prevent XM from providing
service. Inexpensive radios, comparatively, are of better interest.

> I believe a "management change" at XM would be a disaster. They're
> management is far better than SIRI's and it is tough to envision anyone
> better. These people understand the business better than anyone.

Apparently not, see reasoning above and in previous posts about
perception of dishonesty. Also let's not forget you admit they're
trying to skew the playlists in (what you seem to feel) is an
unfavorable manner. It's quite likely the current management needs to
go in favor of someone who has a new and different vision.

This was certainly the case that seems to be paying off at Sirius.

> They DO need to dump their marketing leadership, and I'm hopeful Steve Cook
> will be history. Soon.

They did have (what I feel is) good marketing at one point. Something
certainly seems to have changed.

--D

Nomen Nescio

June 9th, 2006, 12:30 PM

I'm nobody, who are you? said

> "Scott en Aztlán" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> XM is in a world of hurt right now. They went from being the
>> hands-down leader in satellite radio to playing second fiddle to
>> Sirius (thanks in large part to Howard Stern).
>
> Humph. Howard Stern is the reason I chose *not* to renew my
> subscription to Sirius radio. That, and the fact that they replay
> the same songs on their oldies stations more times than I heard them
> on the original Top 40...
>
> Not everyone thinks HS is wonderful. I'm not about to subsidize him.
>
> --
> aliceanncat
>
>

I'm a fan of some of the more vulgar humor around. However, HS doesn't
do it for me. He's simply vulgar, not humorous.

I listened to Eddy Murphy "RAW" once.... for 10 minutes. Trash.

The best comedian? Bill Cosby - "Himself". Funny as hell.

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 9th, 2006, 03:30 PM

> In peoples homes there most definitely is. I don't know too many
> people even here that don't have a WiFi network in their home.

Why would you need it there? My XM's get excellent reception from any room
inside my home. Even my MyFis do that with the antenna headset.

> Realize the WiFi feature would be on TOP of Satellite reception
> outdoors. It would not be the only method in which the unit could get
> Satellite content.. That means you listen on the way to work, then you
> walk into work and you can listen there.
>

First of all, on the networks we install and support, management generally
doesn't permit the streaming of music content. I suspect that is almost
universally true in larger organizations.

But the bottom line is this looks like a stopgap to make up for SIRI's
inability to create a live wearable. And while WIFI capability will help in
a few areas, they are VERY few.

> A friend of mine works in IT Outsourcing in Southern CA. He expresses
> his surprise when there ISN'T WiFi in an office. WiFi networks are
> commonplace in the home and office, just not on light poles in the
> city.

Well, we put it in a lot of places now -- but it is always secure and
generally not available for employees to use their gadgets on.

>> This is a marketing gimmick.
>
> Realize I'm not talking about the ZING unit that was demoed that has no
> Satellite reception itself. I'm talking about the SW100. The Zing
> device is an entirely different skew.
>

You mean SKU. And I do realize it. What it is is a stopgap to try to
bolster crappy reception. This is becoming clearer as the days pass.

> Apparently they do, seeing as they're screwing up guidance and have had
> a soft year.

Apparently, you don't understand why the guidance was changed.

> Or they will find other innovative ways to generate money. Sirius's
> advertising dollars are certainly helping things in a positive way. If
> they really wanted to they could have a limited collection of the old
> Howard Stern material available online and sell advertising in the
> player.

We don't really know exactly who has rights to what there. My sense is that
Stern, personally, isn't giving up a damned thing without being well [over]
paid for it.

> Raising the monthly is also a consideration, and one I think is likely
> for both companies, but probably Sirius first.

Sirius needs a fee increase badly. XM is fine without it and I suspect
won't be doing it anytime soon.

> The shareholder issue could've been taken care of if they were more
> honest. Hugh isn't buying shares, he was ridding himself of them
> knowing that XM was going to have a softer quarter. That's how it
> looks, that's how it resonates.

Last time I checked, that's not illegal and he was permitted to do it. It
is a big stretch to claim there was anything inappropriate happening there.

> XM wouldn't have launched their additional satellites if they didn't
> have a design issue that required them to do so. I appreciate the fact
> Sirius has elected to go with a staggered approach to the situation
> instead of just shooting more satellites up there.

LOL.

> The market says otherwise, as do several analysts.

The market has been wrong about XM/SIRI for a year and half.

> A fight which could ultimately cost XM more than just paying a per-unit
> amount. Either way it's going to cost them in resources. See remarks
> below about the legal system.

Nonsense. Obviously, you don't know anything about the subject -- but RIAA
hasn't a leg to stand on.

> Maybe the benefit would be a regime change with XM.

As far as I'm aware, debtholders can't sue an organization to insist on new
management.

> Yes but Sirius could conceivably LAP XM in subscribers with the right
> catalyst. Stern is merely one of those 'right catalysts'. There is a
> lot of other great content that is or will be coming along for the
> ride. There is a hugely positive energy within that company, one that
> Stern more or less sparked.

Funny.

> XM's gain by being there first in several situations (Including the
> wearable market) has earned them merely a moment by comparison. It's
> like the guy in Guinness Book where he's written in and then someone
> beats his record soon after. XM's catalyst has really been their
> strides in content, things like "I want the MLB". It's the sole reason
> why some friends of mine considered or have XM. The other reason I've
> seen a lot of has been 'it came with the car'.

And you think Stern has earnned SIRI *MORE* than a moment? Hell, XM has the
better content, HANDS DOWN, right now. THis is all about promotion. XM
just hasn't been doing it and that's about to change.

> Apparently not, see reasoning above and in previous posts about
> perception of dishonesty. Also let's not forget you admit they're
> trying to skew the playlists in (what you seem to feel) is an
> unfavorable manner. It's quite likely the current management needs to
> go in favor of someone who has a new and different vision.

It is only apparent to those who don't understand the business of satellite
radio.

> They did have (what I feel is) good marketing at one point. Something
> certainly seems to have changed.
>

When was that?

nu tech 2

June 9th, 2006, 04:30 PM

>>>>> The WiFi is bull----. There simply isn't any significant WiFi reception.

Wifi keeps getting bigger. I work in the biz. There are some entire
towns that are already blanketed. The big boys are starting to move in
to provide it for free. Google for one... Most college campuses are
completely wifi.

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 9th, 2006, 05:30 PM

>
> Wifi keeps getting bigger. I work in the biz. There are some entire
> towns that are already blanketed. The big boys are starting to move in
> to provide it for free. Google for one... Most college campuses are
> completely wifi.

Yeah, well, I work in the "biz", too -- and if there are any towns that are
"blanketed" they are few and very, very far between. I live in a very
popular tourist town and it is "blanketed" as a convenience to tourists.
About 0.5 Sq Mile (or less) in the center of downtown. The rest? Go pay up
at Starbucks.

Nobody, NOBODY, is going to be providing WIFI for free.

Bandwidth is expensive, it is going to continue to be expensive, and someone
is going to have to pay for it. It doesn't just "happen".

While WiFi is available in limited areas in most college campuses, it is a
pretty big leap to claim that "most are completely WiFi". Most have it in
busy common areas and dorms; but "most" are NOT COMPLETELY WiFi. And this
is happening there ONLY because there is someone to foot the bill.

I'm amused at the idea some of you have that some global free bandwidth
provider is just going to "blanket" the country with WiFi. Isn't going to
happen. Someone has to pay.

Bill Kraski

June 9th, 2006, 06:30 PM

BaJoRi wrote:

> Actually, if your name is on the national "DO NOT CALL" list, and
> they persist in telemarketing (3 months os the limit for calling,
> after service has ended. If it has been a year, by law, they are not
> allowed to call you any more if you ask not to be called) calls to
> you, then you can file a complaint, and possibly collect money from
> it, upwards of 10 grand.

Don't get his hopes up. :-) You're right about the $10k+ , but unless
he's the government agency collecting the fines, he'll never see a
penny of that.

--
Bill K

BaJoRi

June 9th, 2006, 08:30 PM

"Bill Kraski" <Bill.Kraski.NoSpam@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3oig.1546$%m5.310@trnddc04...
> BaJoRi wrote:
>
>> Actually, if your name is on the national "DO NOT CALL" list, and
>> they persist in telemarketing (3 months os the limit for calling,
>> after service has ended. If it has been a year, by law, they are not
>> allowed to call you any more if you ask not to be called) calls to
>> you, then you can file a complaint, and possibly collect money from
>> it, upwards of 10 grand.
>
> Don't get his hopes up. :-) You're right about the $10k+ , but unless
> he's the government agency collecting the fines, he'll never see a
> penny of that.

Not true. I collected 973 dollars from some telemarketing outfit last year.
The fine must be paid to the FCC, which passes along to the consumer.
Non-payment puts your company out of business, as the government pulls your
license.

>
> --
> Bill K

Bill Kraski

June 10th, 2006, 05:30 AM

BaJoRi wrote:

> Not true. I collected 973 dollars from some telemarketing outfit last
> year. The fine must be paid to the FCC, which passes along to the
> consumer. Non-payment puts your company out of business, as the
> government pulls your license.

I guess I'll have to research a little more on who gets what portion of
the fines. But I do know that the $10k is the amount for the
individual caller to pay, if caught, besides whatever is levied against
the company. So, it seems to me that promising him $10k+ is wishful
thinking compared to the $973 you actually got out of $10k+. Your
portion is much smaller than the original amount.

--
Bill K

Dr. Droo

June 10th, 2006, 06:33 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> Why would you need it there? My XM's get excellent reception from any room
> inside my home. Even my MyFis do that with the antenna headset.

Just because yours does doesn't mean that everyone elses does. Don't
forget I know people with XM in houses too. Depending on building
construction, it's quite possible you'll not get satellite radio at
all.

> First of all, on the networks we install and support, management generally
> doesn't permit the streaming of music content. I suspect that is almost
> universally true in larger organizations.

Yeah 'we install and support'. I'm sure that a CPA is really needed
for the heavy lifting.

> But the bottom line is this looks like a stopgap to make up for SIRI's
> inability to create a live wearable. And while WIFI capability will help in
> a few areas, they are VERY few.

It will help potentially in any place where there isn't readily
available coverage.

> Well, we put it in a lot of places now -- but it is always secure and
> generally not available for employees to use their gadgets on.

Again, I don't think a CPA is needed here. But do realize that small
business is the majority of business in this country and they usually
don't care one way or another.

> You mean SKU. And I do realize it. What it is is a stopgap to try to
> bolster crappy reception. This is becoming clearer as the days pass.

No, I mean skew, as in slant, different direction.

> Apparently, you don't understand why the guidance was changed.

You can justify it any way you want. I don't see Sirius dropping their
guidance.

> We don't really know exactly who has rights to what there. My sense is that
> Stern, personally, isn't giving up a damned thing without being well [over]
> paid for it.

As far as I know, Sirius licensed the tapes. Whether this means Stern
owns them after the license or not, I'm not sure. There is ambiguity
that made me think maybe CBS still owns the tapes after that, but I
don't think anyone would've agreed to that.

> Sirius needs a fee increase badly. XM is fine without it and I suspect
> won't be doing it anytime soon.

Just remember that in Canada people pay more for Sirius and still
subscribe, more subscribers than XM. I'm not worried.

> Last time I checked, that's not illegal and he was permitted to do it. It
> is a big stretch to claim there was anything inappropriate happening there.

When his talking head is on TV saying they're going to hit guidance,
it's very shady.

> The market has been wrong about XM/SIRI for a year and half.

The market is still the market. It's just like when companies lower
their price on something because no-one is buying it. The market
always sets the price.

> Nonsense. Obviously, you don't know anything about the subject -- but RIAA
> hasn't a leg to stand on.

RIAA doesn't necessarily need a leg to stand on just to create a mess.

> As far as I'm aware, debtholders can't sue an organization to insist on new
> management.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't cause event on its own.

> And you think Stern has earnned SIRI *MORE* than a moment? Hell, XM has the
> better content, HANDS DOWN, right now. THis is all about promotion. XM
> just hasn't been doing it and that's about to change.

I think Stern continues to earn Sirius 'more than a moment'. Like I
said, I don't see Sirius lowering their guidance.

Prove that they have the beter content, it's purely your opinion just
like it would be anyone elses.

Some people here think country music is the greatest thing in the world
too. I think people who like country need to have their head examined.

> It is only apparent to those who don't understand the business of satellite
> radio.

Again, there's plenty of people here and over on RB that understand the
business just fine. You're in your own little world.

> When was that?

When XM had ads that were centric on their content, like when Bob Dylan
had Snoop's chain? The problem is that XM has come to a hardware-based
advertising approach.

For instance, their latest ad is about the Inno. Yes, you can hear a
song and then save it, discover, etc. But they talk largely nothing
about the content overall, they talk about what the device can do.

That's the only XM ad I see on TV now. I never see content related
ones anymore. And yes, it IS about the content. People want to know
what's worth that monthly fee.

--D

Dr. Droo

June 10th, 2006, 06:33 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> While WiFi is available in limited areas in most college campuses,
it is a
> pretty big leap to claim that "most are completely WiFi".

UMS is pretty damn close to completely WiFi actually If you're a
student you can go in and register your MAC Address, up to 5 of them if
I recall. Said player could be one of them.

> I'm amused at the idea some of you have that some global free bandwidth
> provider is just going to "blanket" the country with WiFi. Isn't going to
> happen. Someone has to pay.

I never suggested that in the least. I've merely argued that people
have WiFi in plenty of places they go every day, such as work and at
home. If you're already outdoors, you won't need WIFi for anything, so
MAN projects like in Philly are not important.

--D

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 10th, 2006, 09:31 AM

>
> I never suggested that in the least. I've merely argued that people
> have WiFi in plenty of places they go every day, such as work and at
> home. If you're already outdoors, you won't need WIFi for anything, so
> MAN projects like in Philly are not important.
>

It is a good point. In fact, the value of this "feature" is nil. If you
have accessible WiFi, it is also accessible on your PC, presumably (which is
what I use, for example, in a hotel, so that I don't have to carry a
receiver with me at all). In the case of XM, you can usually get a signal
from indoors unless you're walking around.

Wearability is about using the device outdoors. Indoors, there are a ton of
options.

So, who cares about WiFi? Why would that matter to anyone? It is a
harmless feature, OTHER THAN the battery drain it will surely cause. And
given SIRI's mess with the S50, it is a little tough to have much confidence
in their engineering people to handle the integration of the product.

It really looks like a gimmick. Like SIRI's realtime video, a newsmaker,
but a nonstarter.

Dr. Droo

June 10th, 2006, 10:31 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> It is a good point. In fact, the value of this "feature" is nil. If you
> have accessible WiFi, it is also accessible on your PC, presumably (which is
> what I use, for example, in a hotel, so that I don't have to carry a
> receiver with me at all).

That's great about the PC, but the PC doesn't offer EVERY stream that
the service does.

You're more daring than I about using WiFi in a hotel. I do hope
you're VPNing to somewhere else before you start doing things. Anyone
who's been to Defcon knows why Hotel WiFi is a bad idea.

> Wearability is about using the device outdoors. Indoors, there are a ton of
> options.

Most of those options (such as the computer) do not offer the same
amount of content that the device does. Also, I can walk around the
house with a handheld Sirius receiver on WiFi. I'm not likely to take
a 3 grand laptop out where I'm doing machining. A couple-hundred
dollar radio is of little consequence to me.

Sure, I could get a Squeezebox and stream XM or Sirius via WiFi through
their net portals, for less than the cost of an Inno/Helix or Sirius's
SW100 will probably cost. But I go back to what I said above.

> So, who cares about WiFi? Why would that matter to anyone? It is a
> harmless feature, OTHER THAN the battery drain it will surely cause. And
> given SIRI's mess with the S50, it is a little tough to have much confidence
> in their engineering people to handle the integration of the product.

It's not about it being harmless or harmful, Frontmed. It's about
options. If I'm down in the server cabinet at a Colocation, I can't
get a signal with just a handheld, but I could plug in a compact WiFi
Router and listen to Sirius while I work.

> It really looks like a gimmick. Like SIRI's realtime video, a newsmaker,
> but a nonstarter.

We shall see. The issue for satellite radio has always been about
indoor coverage in some places. You can't get XM here outdoors let
alone indoors where I am. Because of that, having a way to fall over
onto something we do have would be a good thing.

The troops overseas could be getting their daily Stern fix using such a
thing. They could via online streaming soon too, but if they like Blue
Collar Comedy they would still need a unit instead.

--D

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 10th, 2006, 10:31 AM

>
> Yeah 'we install and support'. I'm sure that a CPA is really needed
> for the heavy lifting.
>

Some CPAs have multidisciplinary backgrounds. I can outlift anyone in this
area when it comes to software development and networking. I was coding
PDP11 assembler when you were likely in grade school. Or before.

To be fair, very little "heavy lifting" is required in networking these
days. I normally don't get a call on a networking issue unless everyone
else has failed to solve a problem, except from 50 or so long-term customers
who have been with me for a very long time.

> Again, I don't think a CPA is needed here. But do realize that small
> business is the majority of business in this country and they usually
> don't care one way or another.

Apparently, car radio installers don't get around much. The businesses I
work for are pretty much all "small", and I can tell you that they are
extremely stingy with their bandwidth and with their employees' time.

>> Apparently, you don't understand why the guidance was changed.
>
> You can justify it any way you want. I don't see Sirius dropping their
> guidance.

We'll see what develops. But you should realize that XM's guidance
reduction is not a result of declining demand.

> As far as I know, Sirius licensed the tapes. Whether this means Stern
> owns them after the license or not, I'm not sure. There is ambiguity
> that made me think maybe CBS still owns the tapes after that, but I
> don't think anyone would've agreed to that.

That is not the way the settlement was portrayed. Sirius paid CBS $2
Million in connection with the suit, and Stern paid an undisclosed amount
(probably $10-20M) so that STERN, NOT Sirius, can have "control" of the
master tapes.

>
> Just remember that in Canada people pay more for Sirius and still
> subscribe, more subscribers than XM. I'm not worried.
>

XM has proven there is a great deal of price elasticity in the product. But
price elasticity can and often does change abruptly, particularly for
non-essentials. I don't know how much people will be willing to pay. If
they go up $2-3/month, they're going to get hurt. At the same time, you
can't have a lot of BILLION DOLLAR losses before you're tapped out.

> When his talking head is on TV saying they're going to hit guidance,
> it's very shady.

They did make guidance, essentially. On the 4th the announced 6M subs, and
it is a safe bet only a few receivers were sold between 12/31 and 1/4. Not
10s of thousands.

>
> The market is still the market. It's just like when companies lower
> their price on something because no-one is buying it. The market
> always sets the price.

Sure. But that doesn't make the price "reasonable" or "appropriate" or
"correct". In this case, Sirius has misled neophyte, gullible shareholders
while XM has been totally up front and has more demanding shareholders.
This is a temporary anomaly, drawn out by the excitement of some over the
Stern Effect. As it continues to decline, and the bill comes due, this
problem rights itself. But XM MUST get some real marketing talent.

>
> RIAA doesn't necessarily need a leg to stand on just to create a mess.
>

This mess will be over a couple months from now.

>
> Doesn't mean it wouldn't cause event on its own.
>

Unlikely.

>
> I think Stern continues to earn Sirius 'more than a moment'. Like I
> said, I don't see Sirius lowering their guidance.

Well, SIRI's guidance was less to begin with. But the year is young. If
they are unable to deliver a competitive wearable, we'll see what happens.

> Prove that they have the beter content, it's purely your opinion just
> like it would be anyone elses.

It can't be proven. That's silly. Content is a matter of opinion. My
opinion is that XM's content is better. But it is better my a very a large
margin.

> Again, there's plenty of people here and over on RB that understand the
> business just fine. You're in your own little world.

Hilarious. RB has degenerated into the biggest group of total IDIOTS on the
subject anywhere. It is just as bad as Yahoo.

LOL. The experts over at RB.

> When XM had ads that were centric on their content, like when Bob Dylan
> had Snoop's chain? The problem is that XM has come to a hardware-based
> advertising approach.

Bob Dylan has never appeared in an XM TV commercial.

You don't know who Dylan is, do you? You don't know. LMFAO. Dammit, do
they not know about Dylan up in Maine? ----, how can you NOT know who Bob
Dylan is?

> For instance, their latest ad is about the Inno. Yes, you can hear a
> song and then save it, discover, etc. But they talk largely nothing
> about the content overall, they talk about what the device can do.

Well, I do agree that they are making a mistake by not beginning to focus on
content. I think this is where XM marketing has failed.

> That's the only XM ad I see on TV now. I never see content related
> ones anymore. And yes, it IS about the content. People want to know
> what's worth that monthly fee.

Content is becoming a more important issue. One could argue that Sirius
"content" is what brought its recent success. It may be semantics; but
rationally, if you look at the Stern Migration, I think Sirius benefitted
more from the brand recognition than from the actual content. Only 29% of
new SIRI subscribers cite Stern as the "reason". But when they show up to
buy a receiver, they've heard of Stern but they haven't heard of much else.

I believe as XM begins to promote content, and I think they will, it will
become clear that XM's content is judged to be better. They just don't have
a $750 Million name to attach to it.

Okay, I've said my piece. You can have the last word.

Dr. Droo

June 10th, 2006, 02:30 PM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> Some CPAs have multidisciplinary backgrounds. I can outlift anyone in this
> area when it comes to software development and networking. I was coding
> PDP11 assembler when you were likely in grade school. Or before.

So you say.. You say all sorts of things. If you had any sort of
knowledge you'd know exactly where I work, amongst other things.

> Apparently, car radio installers don't get around much. The businesses I
> work for are pretty much all "small", and I can tell you that they are
> extremely stingy with their bandwidth and with their employees' time.

It's a little different when the state government here pushed hard to
bring hundreds of miles of fiber into the state. You can get
20000/1000 DSL for 59.95 a month here. FTTH is coming in as we speak.

Just because you guys still use tin can and string down there in the
Southcentral part of the US doesn't mean we do up here.

> We'll see what develops. But you should realize that XM's guidance
> reduction is not a result of declining demand.

Again, it's all about how it looks, and that's what matters at the end
of the day.

> That is not the way the settlement was portrayed. Sirius paid CBS $2
> Million in connection with the suit, and Stern paid an undisclosed amount
> (probably $10-20M) so that STERN, NOT Sirius, can have "control" of the
> master tapes.

I'm still waiting for you to quantify the 10-20 million. To those that
read the articles it looks like Sirius paid 2 million for the tapes and
Stern gets them therafter. Probably not quite how it worked out, but
it is how it looks.

> XM has proven there is a great deal of price elasticity in the product. But
> price elasticity can and often does change abruptly, particularly for
> non-essentials. I don't know how much people will be willing to pay. If
> they go up $2-3/month, they're going to get hurt. At the same time, you
> can't have a lot of BILLION DOLLAR losses before you're tapped out.

I'm not so sure they'd get all that hurt. They've added a ton of new
content since 2002, and never raised the rates once.

> They did make guidance, essentially. On the 4th the announced 6M subs, and
> it is a safe bet only a few receivers were sold between 12/31 and 1/4. Not
> 10s of thousands.

That's why their stock ate it. Again, how it looks.

> Sure. But that doesn't make the price "reasonable" or "appropriate" or
> "correct".

It's market value. "Reasonable" or "appropriate" doesn't come into
play. In other words the car still costs the same, regardless of how
you personally feel about it or not.

> Well, SIRI's guidance was less to begin with. But the year is young. If
> they are unable to deliver a competitive wearable, we'll see what happens.

Their guidance was raised and hasn't been retracted.

> It can't be proven. That's silly. Content is a matter of opinion. My
> opinion is that XM's content is better. But it is better my a very a large
> margin.

Right, your opinion. In other words unimportant here.

> Hilarious. RB has degenerated into the biggest group of total IDIOTS on the
> subject anywhere. It is just as bad as Yahoo.

No trust me the idiots over at Yahoo are much worse. There are some
people that do actually make money over on RB.

> Bob Dylan has never appeared in an XM TV commercial.

David Bowie then, my error.

> You don't know who Dylan is, do you? You don't know. LMFAO. Dammit, do
> they not know about Dylan up in Maine? ----, how can you NOT know who Bob
> Dylan is?

I do know who Bob Dylan is. I do get them visually confused however.
Bob Dylan was made joke of on a Simpsons episode not too long ago.

> Well, I do agree that they are making a mistake by not beginning to focus on
> content. I think this is where XM marketing has failed.

Agreed.

> Content is becoming a more important issue. One could argue that Sirius
> "content" is what brought its recent success. It may be semantics; but
> rationally, if you look at the Stern Migration, I think Sirius benefitted
> more from the brand recognition than from the actual content. Only 29% of
> new SIRI subscribers cite Stern as the "reason". But when they show up to
> buy a receiver, they've heard of Stern but they haven't heard of much else.

There's a lot more to Sirius than Stern. Stern is merely a catalyst to
bring recognition to the company so people will see what else there is.
It's also helped bring other people onboard, or to get the fact
they're on Sirius out there.

> I believe as XM begins to promote content, and I think they will, it will
> become clear that XM's content is judged to be better.

They should be doing that now. Edmunds (a place that General Motors
values, amongst others) feels that Sirius is better, as did Mens Health
(I believe) and others as far as content goes. Your can discount these
things all you want, but it doesn't exclude the fact that they did do
the research.

--D

wildcat

June 10th, 2006, 04:30 PM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> >
> I'm amused at the idea some of you have that some global free bandwidth
> provider is just going to "blanket" the country with WiFi. Isn't going to
> happen. Someone has to pay.

You can be amused all you want, but it is starting to happen. I live
in Portland, OR, and they are doing that here. They *are* blanketing
the city with wifi, the project is underway and expected to be complete
in a couple of years. I think within a few years, those cities that
don't do it are going to look really foolish and people will start
expecting it and demanding it.

There's some truth in the "someone has to pay", but only in the same
sense that you "pay" when listening to non-satellite radio, or have a
picnic at your local public park and so forth. They are paying for it
with a combination of tax dollars and advertising with the expectation
that ultimately it will have tangible economic and social benefits to
the city.

BaJoRi

June 10th, 2006, 07:30 PM

"Bill Kraski" <Bill.Kraski.NoSpam@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
news:SVxig.216$db5.7@trnddc03...
> BaJoRi wrote:
>
>> Not true. I collected 973 dollars from some telemarketing outfit last
>> year. The fine must be paid to the FCC, which passes along to the
>> consumer. Non-payment puts your company out of business, as the
>> government pulls your license.
>
> I guess I'll have to research a little more on who gets what portion of
> the fines. But I do know that the $10k is the amount for the
> individual caller to pay, if caught, besides whatever is levied against
> the company. So, it seems to me that promising him $10k+ is wishful
> thinking compared to the $973 you actually got out of $10k+. Your
> portion is much smaller than the original amount.
>
> --
> Bill K

agreed....but you got to just bask in the idea that those jerkoffs calling
at dinner time had to shil out even a dime.

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 10th, 2006, 08:31 PM

>
> You can be amused all you want, but it is starting to happen. I live
> in Portland, OR, and they are doing that here. They *are* blanketing
> the city with wifi, the project is underway and expected to be complete
> in a couple of years. I think within a few years, those cities that
> don't do it are going to look really foolish and people will start
> expecting it and demanding it.
>
> There's some truth in the "someone has to pay", but only in the same
> sense that you "pay" when listening to non-satellite radio, or have a
> picnic at your local public park and so forth. They are paying for it
> with a combination of tax dollars and advertising with the expectation
> that ultimately it will have tangible economic and social benefits to
> the city.

I can't speak about Portland.

But in the cities I've lived in my lifetime, there has not been ONE SERVICE
I can think of that was provided at no charge. Trash pickup; electricity;
water; sewer. Hell, I can't take a truckload of PCs to the landfill without
getting hammered.

Serious bandwidth that people actually CAN and WILL use, is not cheap.
Right now, while demand is light, a city can feed it with a T1 or even DSL
or cable connection. But when they start having to pay for bandwidth
because people are streaming audio, you can forget it.

While I have no doubt that busy areas will eventually have coverage (NOT
rural areas, not in the forseeable future), as demand increases there will
not be a willingness for the city to foot the bill. Imagine, for example,
the demand in a busy area like downtown Dallas. Who's going to pay for the
huge bandwidth demands you'd have to have to support it? Not the city, you
can bet on that!

There is not going to be a free ride on WIFI bandwidth, even in the
socialist areas of the country.

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 10th, 2006, 08:31 PM

>
> So you say.. You say all sorts of things. If you had any sort of
> knowledge you'd know exactly where I work, amongst other things.
>

How in the hell would I know? All I know is you said you install car
radios.

I have nothing to prove; I'm comfortable (not as comfortable as when XM was
at 40 and SIRI was at 8, however).

> Just because you guys still use tin can and string down there in the
> Southcentral part of the US doesn't mean we do up here.

LOL. I'm sure our infrastructure is as good as yours. Maine is about
0.003% covered by WiFi. Arkansas is only a little better. Not enough to
make a WiFi Sirius receiver worthwhile. Sorry.

> I'm still waiting for you to quantify the 10-20 million. To those that
> read the articles it looks like Sirius paid 2 million for the tapes and
> Stern gets them therafter. Probably not quite how it worked out, but
> it is how it looks.

I quantified it. About 10-20M.

> I'm not so sure they'd get all that hurt. They've added a ton of new
> content since 2002, and never raised the rates once.

A lot of people are going to be highly pissed at having to spend more money
to foot the bill on Howard Stern when THEY don't listen to him.

>
> That's why their stock ate it. Again, how it looks.

Let's keep in mind that Sirius stock "ate it", too.

> It's market value. "Reasonable" or "appropriate" doesn't come into
> play. In other words the car still costs the same, regardless of how
> you personally feel about it or not.

Of course it does. Wealthy people got that way by buying assets when the
market was undervaluing them (like XM) and selling them when the market
overvalued them (like SIRI). These situations can persist for a long time,
but they always straighten themselves out.

> No trust me the idiots over at Yahoo are much worse. There are some
> people that do actually make money over on RB.

> There's a lot more to Sirius than Stern.

Sure, but without Stern, Sirius would be flatly noncompetitive with XM.
Without Stern's counterparts at XM (O&A), XM would still be fine.

>
> They should be doing that now. Edmunds (a place that General Motors
> values, amongst others) feels that Sirius is better, as did Mens Health
> (I believe) and others as far as content goes.

That was more than a year ago. But Sirius *HAS* done a better job of
selling its content, no doubt about it. If one evaluates it rationally,
however, the case is hard to make that Sirius content is as good as XM's.

Dr. Droo

June 11th, 2006, 09:30 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> How in the hell would I know? All I know is you said you install car
> radios.

It's in some very obvious places, perhaps my headers even.

> LOL. I'm sure our infrastructure is as good as yours. Maine is about
> 0.003% covered by WiFi. Arkansas is only a little better. Not enough to
> make a WiFi Sirius receiver worthwhile. Sorry.

Again, your list is faulty and doesn't mention the fact that the UMaine
campus is almost 100% WiFi, amongst other things.

Our infrastructure is probably better than yours here too. Governor's
hope is for accessible broadband to everyone in the state. There's
enough fiber coming through here to make for a good start.

Tell me, when are you getting Fiber to the Home in Arkansas? Will it be
before 2008?

> I quantified it. About 10-20M.

No you didn't, you threw a number out there.

> A lot of people are going to be highly pissed at having to spend more money
> to foot the bill on Howard Stern when THEY don't listen to him.

I don't listen to him either, but compared to 20002 and now, there's
plenty of new content that came in that I feel would justify a rate
increase. I'd pay it without much grumbling.

> Let's keep in mind that Sirius stock "ate it", too.

Not to the same extent.

> Of course it does. Wealthy people got that way by buying assets when the
> market was undervaluing them (like XM) and selling them when the market
> overvalued them (like SIRI). These situations can persist for a long time,
> but they always straighten themselves out.

Again, your opinion that XM is undervalued or Sirius is overvalued.
The analysts suggest Sirius was unfairly burdened by XMs current woes.

> Sure, but without Stern, Sirius would be flatly noncompetitive with XM.
> Without Stern's counterparts at XM (O&A), XM would still be fine.

However, Sirius has Stern which has generated awareness for Sirius as a
collective whole. Howard wasn't over on QVC the other day when they
sold several thousand Sirius receivers.

He's merely a catalyst.

> That was more than a year ago. But Sirius *HAS* done a better job of
> selling its content, no doubt about it. If one evaluates it rationally,
> however, the case is hard to make that Sirius content is as good as XM's.

Sirius's content is better than XM's. There is no 'as good' here.

--D

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 11th, 2006, 11:31 AM

> Tell me, when are you getting Fiber to the Home in Arkansas? Will it be
> before 2008?

Where I live, by Lake Catherine, will get AT&T FTTH about the time
rocketships land on Mars. But we've had FTTP for our cable service for
several years.

>> I quantified it. About 10-20M.
>
> No you didn't, you threw a number out there.

That's quantifying it. I estimated it. And while there may never be any
public knowledge of it, the low end of my range is in the ballpark. Prove
me wrong.

> I don't listen to him either, but compared to 20002 and now, there's
> plenty of new content that came in that I feel would justify a rate
> increase. I'd pay it without much grumbling.

Sure, you would. And other people may, as well. All I'm saying is that
there is a limit to price elasticity and we don't know where that limit is.

>> Let's keep in mind that Sirius stock "ate it", too.
>
> Not to the same extent.

Well, no, but they have done a better job of hyping and have ignorant
shareholders who rolled the dice.

It is inarguable that SIRI's shareholders, as a group, are less well
informed about the business and about business in general. They simply
jumped onboard either because of Stern or because they had seen XM run up --
neither of which is a very good reason.

> Again, your opinion that XM is undervalued or Sirius is overvalued.
> The analysts suggest Sirius was unfairly burdened by XMs current woes.

The "analysts" my ass. The TRUE analysts in the group haven't said anything
of the sort. Peck was pissed off because he didn't get a heads up
apparently.

> However, Sirius has Stern which has generated awareness for Sirius as a
> collective whole. Howard wasn't over on QVC the other day when they
> sold several thousand Sirius receivers.

QVC is great for liquidating junk. Which is precisely what happened. But
Sirius is paying them through the nose to do it. QVC doesn't sell ----
unless they can make a killing on it. If anything, it suggests that Sirius'
numbers aren't where people are expecting them for Q2.

>
> Sirius's content is better than XM's. There is no 'as good' here.

You're entitled to your opinion. It is a pretty hard case to make from a
rational perspective.

Dr. Droo

June 11th, 2006, 11:31 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> That's quantifying it. I estimated it. And while there may never be any
> public knowledge of it, the low end of my range is in the ballpark. Prove
> me wrong.

You can't prove it is anymore than I can't prove it isn't.. It's the
same reason why I'm agnostic.

> Well, no, but they have done a better job of hyping and have ignorant
> shareholders who rolled the dice.

People roll the dice with XM too, it's just that there's a lot of
institutional holding.

> QVC is great for liquidating junk. Which is precisely what happened. But
> Sirius is paying them through the nose to do it. QVC doesn't sell ----
> unless they can make a killing on it. If anything, it suggests that Sirius'
> numbers aren't where people are expecting them for Q2.

Xact has price flexibility to do such things. Sirius doesn't. If you
look at internal pricing you'll find there is very little flexibility
in volume for the Sirius branded stuff. I think that's why Walmart
doesn't sell it, because they can't haggle.

This isn't the first time QVC has sold Sirius either.

> You're entitled to your opinion. It is a pretty hard case to make from a
> rational perspective.

Again, your opinion isn't gospel.

--D

Dr. Droo

June 11th, 2006, 12:30 PM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> Where I live, by Lake Catherine, will get AT&T FTTH about the time
> rocketships land on Mars. But we've had FTTP for our cable service for
> several years.

I missed this one.

Are you sure you don't mean HFC (Hybrid Fiber/Coax, also known as Fiber
to the Node)? Your carrier is promoting 4.0/1.0 for 64.95 a month,
that's not exactly the kind of speeds that require FTTP
(Premises/Home).

Just to touch on cheap bandwidth and infrastructure in Maine for a
minute -

Every school has a T-1 and every library and high school has a high
speed ATM link in the state. These connections are provided through a
project with Verizon and the University System that costs us 25 cents
per phone bill.

For consumers - In the Comcast New England network (HFC based) they're
doing 12mbit for the small tier and 16mbit for the expanded tier, both
of which are 1mbit upstream if I recall. In the HFC network here with
Adelphia the tiers are 4mbit/512kbit or 6mbit/768kbit. 42.95$ and
52.95$ respectfully. They've gone up in bandwidth (from 3/128) for the
same price.

Verizon already has FIOS in parts of the southern section of our state,
and will have it where I am (about 160 miles away from there) in late
2007 / early 2008 allegedly. The Fiber trucks have been busy in some
parts of the area lately, perhaps in prep or for other projects.

In the meantime, fast DSL is ridiculously cheap (distance rules apply).
20mbit/1mbit for 59.95 and downward from there.. Great Works has
continued to extend their fiber network to other parts of the system to
provide their ADSL2+ service.

The bottom line is that - All of this can translate easily into
sponsored WiFi MANs. The concept that Rural America lacks cheap/fast
broadband is amusing to me. There are places more rural than here, but
a majority of places aren't. We are, however, one of the most taxed
states in the entire US up against incomes.

--D

Bad Brad

June 11th, 2006, 02:30 PM

Whoa!

I never imagined my post would lead to this!

Without going to the trouble of quotes, I'll just make a few comments.

I do have caller ID. For many years I've kept a log of every
unidentified caller. Almost all of them check out as honest wrong
numbers. 815/754-9656 shows up from time to time, having begun shortly
after I dropped XM. On several occasions I was there and answered.
Each time it *was* XM wanting me to resubscribe.

It could be a recording of a genuine phone comany message played on
their own private Telephone Answering System (TAS), but I doubt it.
When called, the recording is played almost instantly. I don't know of
any TAS that can pick up the line that fast... I find it much easier
to believe that XM is just paying the phone company a miniscule fee to
prevent their line(s) from receiving calls, and *that* is probably to
prevent their own employees from receiving personal calls on-the-job.

A portable number is possible, but I don't think they're really trying
to hide anything. I believe they just don't want their employees
receiving personal calls. (The simplest explanation is usually the
truth.)

The Do Not Call website says offenders have 31 days from a citizen's
registering to get their act together. Yes, they do have a special
rule for companies you used to do business with. But to file a
complaint under that rule one must be registered, then notify the
company again you don't want to be called, and wait 31 days. Now I
*am* registered, and I have notified them again. I believe in the old
saying "Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves." I'm a
patient dude...

I dropped them because they jumped the month-to-month fee from $9.99
(US) to $12.99. Economics, pure and simple. To try to convince me to
stay on they offered $9.99/month if I would commit to at least 1 year.
To which I said "Go To H***!" (At the time I didn't have $120 to
spare. Now I do, but I've gotten used to not having the service... If
they had left it alone, they would have collected a lot more than $120
by now. Too bad for them.)

Getting part of the fine would be nice, but I really just want them to
shrivel up & blow away. OTOH, $973 would just about pay for a lifetime
subscription ;O

-- Brad

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 11th, 2006, 10:30 PM

> I missed this one.
>
> Are you sure you don't mean HFC (Hybrid Fiber/Coax, also known as Fiber
> to the Node)? Your carrier is promoting 4.0/1.0 for 64.95 a month,
> that's not exactly the kind of speeds that require FTTP
> (Premises/Home).

Sorry -- Fiber to the pedastal, not premises.

> Just to touch on cheap bandwidth and infrastructure in Maine for a
> minute -
>
> Every school has a T-1 and every library and high school has a high
> speed ATM link in the state. These connections are provided through a
> project with Verizon and the University System that costs us 25 cents
> per phone bill.
>

You understand that 1.544 mbps isn't exactly massive bandwidth these days,
right? I wouldnt' try to support even a moderately busy WiFi node on a T1.

> The bottom line is that - All of this can translate easily into
> sponsored WiFi MANs. The concept that Rural America lacks cheap/fast
> broadband is amusing to me. There are places more rural than here, but
> a majority of places aren't. We are, however, one of the most taxed
> states in the entire US up against incomes.

I live 7 miles from the nearest town. I believe it is safe to say that
NOBODY in this state and NOBODY in Maine who lives 7 miles from the nearest
town has FTTH or will have anytime soon.

But you misunderstand the issue, I think. The point is, who is going to pay
for the bandwidth to support the extension of WiFi networks beyond the kind
of "convenience" facilities some towns offer? Yes, universities will on
their campuses; but beyond that, there is very little interest. I know our
local city board has already said they're through. If someone wants to do
it for money, fine.

Try getting some free WiFi on the Las Vegas strip.

Dr. Droo

June 12th, 2006, 02:30 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> Sorry -- Fiber to the pedastal, not premises.

They have had that here since mid/late 2000.. One of the PUC
provisions of being a cable carrier here was that you had to be willing
to upgrade all of the infrastructure.

> You understand that 1.544 mbps isn't exactly massive bandwidth these days,
> right? I wouldnt' try to support even a moderately busy WiFi node on a T1.

It's not the T1s on an individual level, it's the fact they had to
actually build the infrastructure to be above to provide these
resources. I definitely think it helped spark what we have now.

> I live 7 miles from the nearest town. I believe it is safe to say that
> NOBODY in this state and NOBODY in Maine who lives 7 miles from the nearest
> town has FTTH or will have anytime soon.

If they're part of a subdivision it's possible here. It'd probably be
more expensive for them to install a remote CO here compared to
extending their fiber service a little further. In other words, it
depends 'which 7 miles'.

However, the houses in the sticks can usually get cable Internet, which
is being boosted to speeds on par with the second tier speeds of the
Verizon FTTH service.

> But you misunderstand the issue, I think. The point is, who is going to pay
> for the bandwidth to support the extension of WiFi networks beyond the kind
> of "convenience" facilities some towns offer?

I'm saying that anyone could come in downtown and pay 59.95 and offer
up a WiFi hotspot on a 20000/1000 ADSL2+ link. A local pharmacy up
near campus has done this for a long time, for free. Heck, some McDs
have free WiFi too (like the one near campus), not the fee-based
solution that many McDs use in other states. None of these are on the
JWire list but have been around for several years and are advertised on
a local news/talk FM station.

My sole problem is that you make bandwidth seem expensive here in a
rural area. It's not bandwidth costs, it's purely a lack of motivation
to evolve that kind of project. Any town in this state has 400-800$ a
year for enough bandwidth for a decent-sized WiFi spot. Heck, if they
really wanted to do it, a carrier here would probably eat the cost in
exchange of a blurb on the captive portal.

--D

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 12th, 2006, 09:32 PM

> My sole problem is that you make bandwidth seem expensive here in a
> rural area. It's not bandwidth costs, it's purely a lack of motivation
> to evolve that kind of project. Any town in this state has 400-800$ a
> year for enough bandwidth for a decent-sized WiFi spot.

Sure, as long as nobody is using it bandwidth is cheap. Steal a few bits
here & there & nobody notices.

But when you get people walking around routinely streaming audio (or worse,
video), all that changes.

We already have the backbones wanting to eliminate "internet neutrality" --
with one thing in mind -- upping bandwidth costs.

Companies who build WiFi powered devices for streaming with the expectation
the bandwidth is going to be free or even cheap has another think coming.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE HAS COST AND IT IS
SUBSTANTIAL. Companies which buy high-end Ciscos, lay, buy, light, and
maintain fiber, aren't going to start doing it for free.

The FTTH initiative was stupidly put off by the telcos because they weren't
sure how they would earn back the massive investment. Now, they realize
they stand to lose other services so they're getting busy. But it doesn't
change the size of the investment, and it doesn't change the fact that they
expect to be repaid for it.

While there may be some value in a WiFi-based device for use within the
home, for the forseeable future, such a device will have little value in
other places. People who are assuming that WiFi will cover the nation
within a few years are nuts.

Almost 30 years ago, I was involved in writing some code on a project which
mapped the nation's cellphone infrastructure. The day of the meeting where
we were told we had the contract, we were also told that the rollout would
be fast, furious, and extensive.

Today, there are still huge dead spots all over the country. The problems
with WiFi are even bigger (in that we don't know who will be willing to pay
for it). 50 years from now? Sure, that could happen. 10 years from now?
No way.

Bill Kraski

June 12th, 2006, 11:32 PM

Bad Brad wrote:

> The Do Not Call website says offenders have 31 days from a citizen's
> registering to get their act together. Yes, they do have a special
> rule for companies you used to do business with. But to file a
> complaint under that rule one must be registered, then notify the
> company again you don't want to be called, and wait 31 days. Now I
> *am* registered, and I have notified them again. I believe in the old
> saying "Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves." I'm a
> patient dude...

Well, that's where it gets interesting. At least in the beginning, it
took almost 31 days from signup to actually get included in the list.
Companies are only required to "scrub" their data once a month. So, in
the beginning of this whole thing, a company might not have your DNCR
listing for almost 3 months. If it could show that they did what they
were supposed to, they was not considered negligent or finable. Now
that listings are added within 24-48 hours, it could still be up to 60
days before a company got your listing to remove you from their call
list & still be quite legal. Again, it depends on when you get on the
list & when the company updates their information.

> Getting part of the fine would be nice, but I really just want them to
> shrivel up & blow away. OTOH, $973 would just about pay for a
> lifetime subscription ;O

<VBG>

--
Bill K

Dr. Droo

June 13th, 2006, 10:30 AM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> But when you get people walking around routinely streaming audio (or worse,
> video), all that changes.

It'd take a deal of people to completely saturate a 20mbit pipe. You'd
maybe have 10 or 20 people in any given area or point in time using
such a thing here, even in downtown.

The CO is down there, so getting a small enough loop distance is
trivial.

> Companies who build WiFi powered devices for streaming with the expectation
> the bandwidth is going to be free or even cheap has another think coming.

I think you'll find that's not the case with Sirius. The assumption is
made that WIFI is inside many buildings where people work, and those
buildings may or may not have access to the satellites. In other
words, it's an ancillary feature for many of us that have WiFi-based
networks.

I don't suspect the advertising is going to suggest that there's an
abundance of hotspots to use for free. Outdoors it's not really a
concern, especially here where the angle is high.

> AT THE END OF THE DAY, INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE HAS COST AND IT IS
> SUBSTANTIAL. Companies which buy high-end Ciscos, lay, buy, light, and
> maintain fiber, aren't going to start doing it for free.

The other infrastructure to get it here is minor to the bottom line for
someone to put up a hotspot. The price to someone for bandwidth here
is 59.99 for 20/1.

Realize that most ISPs, including mine here, already have their own
fiber links, either leased or that they ran themselves. This isn't
going to change because the FTTH network is coming online.

> The FTTH initiative was stupidly put off by the telcos because they weren't
> sure how they would earn back the massive investment. Now, they realize
> they stand to lose other services so they're getting busy.

Yes, so they're fighting for the ability to provide video services as
well. Cable is expensive and continues to grow in cost. FTTH is
likely to be cheaper here compared to cable. I switched to Dish
Network for the same reason and save about 60$ a month compared to
cable TV. Cable Internet is 20$ more a month than the residential
folks pay for 3/768 DSL here. The FTTH folks shouldn't have a hard
time competing, if they can get permission to sell video in these
markets.

Verizon will have a monopoly on the content going over the fiber too,
which is something they don't have over their dialtone or data services
at the moment. Admittedly, they allow companies to have equipment in
their CO (Even though they're no longer required to, afaik). Verizon
is also not very serious about deploying ADSL2+, since they're doing
the FTTH thing.

> But it doesn't
> change the size of the investment, and it doesn't change the fact that they
> expect to be repaid for it.

The bottom line cost is still 15/2 for 49.95 on FIOS. DSL is also not
going away here anytime soon, so you can still opt to stay on that 20/1
feed for 59.95.

> While there may be some value in a WiFi-based device for use within the
> home, for the forseeable future, such a device will have little value in
> other places. People who are assuming that WiFi will cover the nation
> within a few years are nuts.

I'm not suggesting this at all. I am saying that we will see more WiFi
spots and WISPs, especially here. But there's no need for WiFi
outdoors here in the situation of a Sirius hybrid receiver. The Sirius
satellites are relatively overhead. The benefits in a hybrid receiver
(and XM would benefit too) are enhanced indoor coverage, and the
possibility of getting SOME service outside of the North American
footprint when traveling abroad.

> Today, there are still huge dead spots all over the country. The problems
> with WiFi are even bigger (in that we don't know who will be willing to pay
> for it). 50 years from now? Sure, that could happen. 10 years from now?
> No way.

WiFi spots are for isolated areas where people congregate. It's more
likely cell phone data will evolve here for semi-continuous coverage,
with the same caveats that the cell phone network have provided in the
past.

I'm not expecting big structures for WiMax to light up the broadband
sky across the country like some idiots have posted here. However,
leveraging technologies such as WiMax here will help create broadband
coverage for those pockets of the region that are using Satellite
Internet or Dial-up.

--D

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone

June 13th, 2006, 02:30 PM

>
> It'd take a deal of people to completely saturate a 20mbit pipe. You'd
> maybe have 10 or 20 people in any given area or point in time using
> such a thing here, even in downtown.

So, you think cities are going to be providing a 20mbps pipe for each 10 or
20 customers? And even a 20mbps pipe doesn't deliver 20mpbs of
throughput -- a small fraction of that given the current infrastructure.

> I think you'll find that's not the case with Sirius. The assumption is
> made that WIFI is inside many buildings where people work, and those
> buildings may or may not have access to the satellites. In other
> words, it's an ancillary feature for many of us that have WiFi-based
> networks.

Sure, some percentage of people (5%?) have WiFi in their homes; but what is
the advantage unless the receiver is ineffective in the house via satellite?
This is just convoluted reasoning. I have WiFi, but my Tao sits on top of
my TV right next to my WiFi router and works great. Why would I want to
burn bandwidth to get crappier sounding satellite radio than I can get with
the antenna?

> The other infrastructure to get it here is minor to the bottom line for
> someone to put up a hotspot. The price to someone for bandwidth here
> is 59.99 for 20/1.

I doubt you can get 20/1 for commercial use for 60/month. Highly unlikely.
They know a home user isn't likely to pull down 20mbps -- but if you're
servicing 100 users on a WiFi network, or 1000, it is a different thing.

> Realize that most ISPs, including mine here, already have their own
> fiber links, either leased or that they ran themselves. This isn't
> going to change because the FTTH network is coming online.

What a crock. Some do, some don't.

> I'm not suggesting this at all. I am saying that we will see more WiFi
> spots and WISPs, especially here.

Sure -- you guys have fewer than damned near any state (even *WE* have more,
and that's not saying much). This is going to happen. But it is doubtful
the trend is going to be toward more free WiFi.

I just don't see it as a short-term (3/5 yr) value proposition for satellite
radio owners; it would not cause me to choose one receiver over another
under any circumstances because it provides almost zero added value.

Dr. Droo

June 13th, 2006, 03:30 PM

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> So, you think cities are going to be providing a 20mbps pipe for each 10 or
> 20 customers? And even a 20mbps pipe doesn't deliver 20mpbs of
> throughput -- a small fraction of that given the current infrastructure.

No I'm saying that it's all relative. You could add multiple DSL lines
and band them together too.

The 20mbit link does provide 20mbit, but the Wifi infrastructure
probably doesn't.

On DSL Reports people are getting 18-20mbit from the 20mbit service.

> Sure, some percentage of people (5%?) have WiFi in their homes; but what is
> the advantage unless the receiver is ineffective in the house via satellite?
> This is just convoluted reasoning. I have WiFi, but my Tao sits on top of
> my TV right next to my WiFi router and works great. Why would I want to
> burn bandwidth to get crappier sounding satellite radio than I can get with
> the antenna?

Who's to say it would be crappier sounding? Are you familiar with UMA?
UMA is the cellular method of using a WiFi network as a means to
transport cellular service. The Agere patent suggests a similar method
for Satellite Radio. No-one is saying this thing would switch to
Internet Radio, it's likely it'd stream PAC just over a different
service.

There are plenty of reasons why there wouldn't be signal indoors with
either service. Not everyone is living in a new house, etc. Just
because it works for you doesn't mean a damn thing.

> I doubt you can get 20/1 for commercial use for 60/month. Highly unlikely.
> They know a home user isn't likely to pull down 20mbps -- but if you're
> servicing 100 users on a WiFi network, or 1000, it is a different thing.

Correct, commercial is 100$ more. It's still cheap comparatively.

By the way T&Cs against hammering the line 24/7 is more of a cable
internet thing. Cox and Adelphia both will threaten to shut you off.
I've never seen such things happen with DSL carriers here.

> What a crock. Some do, some don't.

Prove otherwise. They might go to another CO from here using copper,
but this is the 2nd largest metro area in the state.

If you pull my header and trace out my IP you'll see lots of DF and FE
coming upward and the SONET ring.

> Sure -- you guys have fewer than damned near any state (even *WE* have more,
> and that's not saying much). This is going to happen. But it is doubtful
> the trend is going to be toward more free WiFi.

We have a lot more than your JWire list shows. Apparently people who
submit to JWire don't listen to terrestrial radio here. They're talked
about regularly and yes, they are free.

> I just don't see it as a short-term (3/5 yr) value proposition for satellite
> radio owners; it would not cause me to choose one receiver over another
> under any circumstances because it provides almost zero added value.

If you have Wifi at work and you work in a place that can't get a
satellite signal, then it's absolutely the difference. If people are
Stern fans they can stream via the net, but if those people are fans of
other programming (such as sports programming, etc.) they'd be screwed.

It most definitely adds value to the product. Can listen live via the
sats and then roam onto the net indoors.

--D