Sirius is ahead of the game with new wifi device

[nu tech 2]

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



You are wrong about this bro... Google is blanketing San Francisco
with free wifi. There were 26 companies who were interested in
providing this free service to the city. Sirius' decision to come out
with a wifi device is brilliant IMO. I especially like the "My Space
like" social networking feature that the device has. Other major
internet companies are looking to enter the free wifi market.



"San Francisco will be a true test bed for location based services
and applications," says Chris Sacca, principal of new business
development at Google. While the initial use of location-based services
might be limited to more-focussed and targeted advertising, the
potential of location-based services is immense, officials said. Sacca
pointed out that the network bid was in line with Google's thinking
on delivering answers anytime anywhere to anyone, and looking beyond a
desktop PC.




http://gigaom.com/2005/09/30/google-confirms-san-francisco-wifi-plans/

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> You are wrong about this bro... Google is blanketing San Francisco
> with free wifi. There were 26 companies who were interested in
> providing this free service to the city. Sirius' decision to come out
> with a wifi device is brilliant IMO. I especially like the "My Space
> like" social networking feature that the device has. Other major
> internet companies are looking to enter the free wifi market.

> "San Francisco will be a true test bed for location based services
> and applications," says Chris Sacca, principal of new business
> development at Google. While the initial use of location-based services
> might be limited to more-focussed and targeted advertising, the
> potential of location-based services is immense, officials said. Sacca
> pointed out that the network bid was in line with Google's thinking
> on delivering answers anytime anywhere to anyone, and looking beyond a
> desktop PC.

The argument is utter nonsense.

We have Sirius saying, "The portable market is minimal -- less than 5% of
radio listeners want to listen 'on the go'" -- and at the same time, you say
this will be a huge success.

When the time is right, there will be all kinds of such devices. But right
now, there is no significant free WiFi coverage (certainly, well under
0.000001% coverage of the United States) and the vast majority of that
requires you pay for it. It isn't worth the added battery drain.

Why would Sirius add this? One reason: They cannot deliver adequate
satellite signal until they get repeaters and a new bird in the air.

[nu tech 2]

Frontmed,

Siruis is ahead of the game with the new wifi device...





City of London Gets Blanket WiFi


http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=distribution&id=3028



New Orleans to get free city-wide WiFi

http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/29/new-orleans-to-get-free-city-wide-wifi/



Philly too..

http://www.phila.gov/wireless/faqs.html



City of Aurora, Illinois to Become the First City in Illinois to Deploy
a Citywide WiFi Network

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/cgth009.html?.v=44



boston considering free wifi

http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2006/06/12/citys_wifi_deal_falls_through/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Business+News




Grand Haven, Mich. has announced that it is the first city to offer
end-to-end citywide wireless Internet access.


http://news.digitaltrends.com/article4909.html

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

Yeah, this is bullcrap.

These guys are charging for it and still losing a ton of money, other than
NOLA where they are simply piggybacking onto an existing network and where
speeds will be reduced to 128kbps when the system is operational. And NOLA
is a special case in that the city is built on tourism where there is a
legitimate government purpose.

More importantly, the point is the "low cost" infrastructure isn't "low
cost" anymore when significant numbers of users begin to use it.

5-10 years from now? Metro areas could have significant WiFi coverage
although at a price (long term, there will be no significant free coverage).
Near term? It is hard to see the advantage in building it into a sdars
receiver.

[Coyote]

> More importantly, the point is the "low cost" infrastructure isn'
>
> 5-10 years from now? Metro areas could have significant WiFi coverage
> although at a price (long term, there will be no significant free
> coverage). Near term? It is hard to see the advantage in building it into
> a sdars receiver.
>
>
>

City wide WiFi is not 5 10 years away. Hears a reality check for you:

http://news.com.com/The+citywide+Wi-Fi+reality+check/2100-7351_3-5722150.html

[David]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:07:16 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, this is bullcrap.
>
>These guys are charging for it and still losing a ton of money, other than
>NOLA where they are simply piggybacking onto an existing network and where
>speeds will be reduced to 128kbps when the system is operational. And NOLA
>is a special case in that the city is built on tourism where there is a
>legitimate government purpose.
>
>More importantly, the point is the "low cost" infrastructure isn't "low
>cost" anymore when significant numbers of users begin to use it.
>
>5-10 years from now? Metro areas could have significant WiFi coverage
>although at a price (long term, there will be no significant free coverage).
>Near term? It is hard to see the advantage in building it into a sdars
>receiver.
>
>
This is not a mobile application. This is for homes, dorms, hotels,
malls, etc.

[J. Fowler]

Coyote wrote:
>> More importantly, the point is the "low cost" infrastructure isn'
>>
>> 5-10 years from now? Metro areas could have significant WiFi coverage
>> although at a price (long term, there will be no significant free
>> coverage). Near term? It is hard to see the advantage in building it into
>> a sdars receiver.
>
> City wide WiFi is not 5 10 years away. Hears a reality check for you:
>
> http://news.com.com/The+citywide+Wi-Fi+reality+check/2100-7351_3-5722150.html

What many are doing is using the last mile on the unlicensed band and
using licensed spectrum to shoot the data between towers and the wired
networks. Cities relying solely on the dirty unlicensed band won't last.
Those with the licensed spectrum will likely be absorbed or put out of
business by the telcoms.

Most of these WiFi networks are not free. They are too expensive to
setup and maintain without some sort of revenue. Driving/walking out of
a hotspot will require connecting to a different provider or being in a
deadzone.

The zinger is just another crutch that relies on the user being close to
wireless network to receive live content. Even your own backyard wifi
means you have to rely on an ISP to get connected to the internet. Why
can't they just build something that receives live content from their
satellites or their repeaters? How is the reliance on wifi networks
putting sirius ahead in the game? Will sirius marketing disclose the
reliance on such networks to receive on-the-go coverage?

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

Yeah, read the article you cited, genius:

"The free model is not sustainable," said Amit Paunikar, a software engineer
at Nomadix, a maker of wireless access gateway products. "Someone has to pay
for the construction and operations of the network. I don't think that a lot
of cities get how many issues will come up."

and

"Using Wi-Fi to provide broadband to an entire city is still pretty new,"
said Alex Thomson, a local lawyer who chaired the 25-member committee
examining this issue. "Our thinking was, do we really want to be the guinea
pig? Philadelphia is getting a lot of great press out of this, but we still
have to wait and see if the network really gets built and if it works like
they hope it will."

and

"Building the network is the easy part," Schremp said. "Cities also have to
find a way to fund the operation of the network. That's the piece many
people overlook. If an access point goes out, who will go out at 2 a.m. to
climb the light pole to fix it? How much tech support do you give users?
These are questions all ISPs and telcos have to face."


People who are claiming this is just around the corner simply do not
comprehend the difficulties, both political and with the technology, yet to
be faced.

That's not to say that WiFi won't someday be broadly available, but it isn't
going to be free and availability will be highly limited for the next five
years and not ubiquitous for much longer than that.

[J. Fowler]

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
>
> "Building the network is the easy part," Schremp said. "Cities also have to
> find a way to fund the operation of the network. That's the piece many
> people overlook. If an access point goes out, who will go out at 2 a.m. to
> climb the light pole to fix it? How much tech support do you give users?
> These are questions all ISPs and telcos have to face."

Many hotels are having to deal with people hijacking their free service
to commit illegal acts like fraud, spamming, hacking, phishing, etc. How
will cities respond to such activities? How many lawsuits will hit
these free providers before they shut it down or require the end user to
pay for the service?

[Dr. Droo]

J. Fowler wrote:
> The zinger is just another crutch that relies on the user being close to
> wireless network to receive live content.

The Zing device is an interactive mp3 device first that just happens to
stream Sirius's Internet feed.

When Zing says that there will be a device coming from Sirius later
this year, it could be the new Live wearable (which will get signal
from the sats for sure, not sure about Wifi roaming, etc.), or it could
be a separate product. I don't think anyone knows for sure, but there's
been plenty of speculation.

Wifi-only would be useless to me, but the ability to use satellite or
Wifi depending where I am would be of interest to me. I could be
upgrading hardware in a cabinet half the day at a colocation. Odds are
you're not going to get satellite radio in there. A compact WiFi
router is a cheap commodity to have in my laptop case.

--D

[CodeMonkey]

Coyote wrote:
>> More importantly, the point is the "low cost" infrastructure isn'
>>
>> 5-10 years from now? Metro areas could have significant WiFi coverage
>> although at a price (long term, there will be no significant free
>> coverage). Near term? It is hard to see the advantage in building it into
>> a sdars receiver.
>>
>>
>>
>
> City wide WiFi is not 5 10 years away. Hears a reality check for you:
>
> http://news.com.com/The+citywide+Wi-Fi+reality+check/2100-7351_3-5722150.html
>
>

How about an article that is less than a year old?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1925

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> How about an article that is less than a year old?
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1925

Thanks for that post. It brings a little reality to the thread.

There is little doubt that some day the technical problems will be worked
out and reasonable WiFI coverage will be available in Metro areas.

But in almost instances it won't be free and will require you to have an
account; you'll be paying to use it -- at least for a few years.
Eventually, who knows? But it is very premature to be proclaiming any
streaming music device a "success".

As a practical matter, once a satisfactory streaming device is available,
there are TONS of music resources that will be competing for the SDARS
dollar.

[David]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:20:36 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:


>
>As a practical matter, once a satisfactory streaming device is available,
>there are TONS of music resources that will be competing for the SDARS
>dollar.
>
Canned music is ubiquitous. The company with unique exclusive content
will stand out from the monkey chatter.

[Coyote]

"All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone" <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote in message
news:U6zkg.117072$dW3.90644@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> How about an article that is less than a year old?
>>
>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1925
>
> Thanks for that post. It brings a little reality to the thread.
>
> There is little doubt that some day the technical problems will be worked
> out and reasonable WiFI coverage will be available in Metro areas.
>
> But in almost instances it won't be free and will require you to have an
> account; you'll be paying to use it -- at least for a few years.
> Eventually, who knows? But it is very premature to be proclaiming any
> streaming music device a "success".
>
> As a practical matter, once a satisfactory streaming device is available,
> there are TONS of music resources that will be competing for the SDARS
> dollar.
>
>
>

Check this link out the first city with FREE WiFi service

http://www.stcloud.org/index.asp?NID=402

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> Canned music is ubiquitous. The company with unique exclusive content
> will stand out from the monkey chatter.

You may be right. I hope so -- that leaves XM in a commanding position.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> Check this link out the first city with FREE WiFi service
>
> http://www.stcloud.org/index.asp?NID=402

Yes, all 15 Sq. Miles. Impressive. Residents in those 15 Square Miles will
love the Sirius wearable (as long as they have a wireless bridge for indoor
use).

Don't let it go to your head.

When cities start providing free electricity, water, sewer, trash pickup,
etc., then Wireless Internet can only be next.

[CodeMonkey]

Coyote wrote:
> "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone" <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote in message
> news:U6zkg.117072$dW3.90644@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>> How about an article that is less than a year old?
>>>
>>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1925
>> Thanks for that post. It brings a little reality to the thread.
>>
>> There is little doubt that some day the technical problems will be worked
>> out and reasonable WiFI coverage will be available in Metro areas.
>>
>> But in almost instances it won't be free and will require you to have an
>> account; you'll be paying to use it -- at least for a few years.
>> Eventually, who knows? But it is very premature to be proclaiming any
>> streaming music device a "success".
>>
>> As a practical matter, once a satisfactory streaming device is available,
>> there are TONS of music resources that will be competing for the SDARS
>> dollar.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Check this link out the first city with FREE WiFi service
>
> http://www.stcloud.org/index.asp?NID=402
>
>

Again, the service is NOT working correctly yet, and it is costing over
2 million to implement, and upwards of $400,000 per year to maintain.
Think it will last long? Probably not. Also, check this out.

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70720-0.html?tw=rss.index

About the service in St. Cloud:

-
At first, a desktop computer in Lusardi's house could use the Wi-Fi
network with no problem, but his laptop would only work outdoors. Even
then it was too slow and unreliable, so he kept his $20 per month Sprint
DSL service.

Now the desktop doesn't even work, and he's completely abandoned the
idea of dropping his pay service and using the network.

"It's just total frustration," Lusardi said. "I'm going to stay with the
DSL and just forget it, because I don't think it's going to work. Very
few people are going to use it, and they're going to say it's
underutilized and they're going to shut it down."

Fleishman said the fact that others share Lusardi's frustration is a
crucial technical and public relations problem for the vanguard project.
He said residents should understand many won't be able to use the free
network without additional equipment to strengthen the signal.
-

And the other areas that were all mentioned as having plans to start a
free wi-fi service...

-
"Other cities like Tempe, Arizona, have networks over a larger area (187
square miles), but access isn't free. Planned projects in places like
Chicago and Philadelphia would also dwarf St. Cloud's network, but also
require a fee for access."
-

Those plans in philly and chicago are no longer going to be offering it
FREE. It's going be a fee based service in those cities.

-
"Google and EarthLink are teaming up to build a $15 million Wi-Fi
network across San Francisco, and their proposal is entering final
negotiations. EarthLink's faster offering would cost $20 per month,
while Google would provide a slower, free service financed by advertising."
-

Earthlink and Google are NOT doing a free service! It's a fee based
service only.

[CodeMonkey]

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
>> Check this link out the first city with FREE WiFi service
>>
>> http://www.stcloud.org/index.asp?NID=402
>
> Yes, all 15 Sq. Miles. Impressive. Residents in those 15 Square Miles will
> love the Sirius wearable (as long as they have a wireless bridge for indoor
> use).
>
> Don't let it go to your head.
>
> When cities start providing free electricity, water, sewer, trash pickup,
> etc., then Wireless Internet can only be next.
>
>

And don't forget.. Many of the "free" services that earthlink and google
are going to offer will not be "internet" services. It will be LOCAL web
sites only and google's local only serach engine. So the wi-fi enabled
sirius unit will not work on this service.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060412/1147232.shtml

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

Another great post proving the point -- "too slow and unreliable".

Imagine how slow and unreliable it would be if people were actually
streaming audio over it?

CodeMonkey -- you have totally disproven the assertion by these guys that
"free citywide WiFi" is anywhere on the near term horizon.

When they stop charging me for water and trash pickup, then I'll believe
WiFi may be next.

[J. Fowler]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> J. Fowler wrote:
>> The zinger is just another crutch that relies on the user being close to
>> wireless network to receive live content.
>
> The Zing device is an interactive mp3 device first that just happens to
> stream Sirius's Internet feed.

Sirius internet feed only? Sounds like a 1/2 neutered 802.11/x +
SiriusCE jammed into an MP3 player. Sure hope they don't restrict audio
streams to sirius content only. It would be a waste if they did.

> Wifi-only would be useless to me, but the ability to use satellite or
> Wifi depending where I am would be of interest to me. I could be
> upgrading hardware in a cabinet half the day at a colocation. Odds are
> you're not going to get satellite radio in there. A compact WiFi
> router is a cheap commodity to have in my laptop case.

Delphi makes a signal repeater for XM related products. I could plug one
of these in and walk around in secure areas receiving every single XM
channel, not just what's online.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

It is pretty tough to imagine why SIRI is including any WiFi capability in
their wearable if the wearable doesn't have some major deficiency to begin
with.

Including this capability will increase battery drain as well as the
size/heat output of the device. Furthermore, given the mess they made of
the S50, I'm not sure that their engineering & software people are quite up
to the engineering challenge at this point.

So, why are they doing it, now? Clearly, they have some problems with
reception, and until they have repeaters and get a new bird launched, those
problems are going to persist.

It would appear they have some problems they're trying to cover with this
nonsense.

[David]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:07:30 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>> Canned music is ubiquitous. The company with unique exclusive content
>> will stand out from the monkey chatter.
>
>You may be right. I hope so -- that leaves XM in a commanding position.
>
>
You must have a 4 inch ----, the way you always use this bombastic
language.

[Coyote]

> Again, the service is NOT working correctly yet, and it is costing over
> 2 million to implement, and upwards of $400,000 per year to maintain.
> Think it will last long? Probably not.

Seems to me the service is still active today.

BUTT I have read where it costs $2000 per home to install fiber optics and
only
$200 per home for WiFi. A few antennae scattered around on existing light
poles or signs
would be cheaper to maintain than buried fiber optics that gets dug up all
the time as well
as the accessory support equipment. In fact the cost to maintain a fiber
system should exceed that of wifi.

>
> -
> At first, a desktop computer in Lusardi's house could use the Wi-Fi
> network with no problem, but his laptop would only work outdoors. Even
> then it was too slow and unreliable, so he kept his $20 per month Sprint
> DSL service.

Idiot could have done a upgrade to a better WiFi card...they run around $45.
A one time fee of $45 is much better than a $20 per month fee for DSL.
Where I live DSL costs $49 per month. The only other option is dialup.


>
> Now the desktop doesn't even work, and he's completely abandoned the idea
> of dropping his pay service and using the network.

A device that costs near $160 (again a one time fee) that would provide a
strong wifi
signal throught the interior of large home or building could be installed
and his desktop
with proper wifi card would function well.

>
> "It's just total frustration," Lusardi said. "I'm going to stay with the
> DSL and just forget it, because I don't think it's going to work. Very few
> people are going to use it, and they're going to say it's underutilized
> and they're going to shut it down."


The guy is must be a idiot or a frontmed clone that works for a current
landline ISP in
St. Cloud

>
> And the other areas that were all mentioned as having plans to start a
> free wi-fi service...
>
> -
> "Other cities like Tempe, Arizona, have networks over a larger area (187
> square miles), but access isn't free. Planned projects in places like
> Chicago and Philadelphia would also dwarf St. Cloud's network, but also
> require a fee for access."
> -
>

Some of the cities do have a two tier system. Free if the user accepts pop
up type ads
or ad free if they pay a small fee.

Then there is this:

"BARBARA CHRISTIANSEN - North County Staff
American Fork bought a broadband network in 2002 to provide
lightening-fast Internet to residents. Now the system might be up for sale
or lease.

The City Council voted Tuesday to declare the system as surplus, then
decided to request proposals from possible buyers or leasers for all or part
of the network. The proposals are due July 13.

Although the city is looking at proposals, it could reject them, said
City Councilman Shirl LeBaron.

Since the city purchased the system from Switchpoint, formerly
AirSwitch, it has spent more than $6 million in bonds to pay for upgrades to
the system. Including the bond payments, which continue for seven more
years, the system has been losing $1.2 million annually, said Councilwoman
Heidi Rodeback.

Rodeback said the city is committed to the system and wants to ensure
it remains available to residents and businesses.

"It is believed that under private ownership, more capital will flow
to meet the system's needs, and that market forces will bring about the
necessary upgrades to and expansion of the existing network," she said.

Several in attendance Tuesday urged the city to postpone action. Mayor
Heber Thompson explained the need to proceed.

"We are at a significant loss position," he said. "We don't have the
prospect of getting much better very soon."

Rodeback suggested several requirements be placed on those who apply
to buy or lease the system.

"They should honor all existing ISP contracts," she said. "They should
offer the triple play," which she said includes offering telephone,
television and Internet service together.

"They should extend the network to the remainder of the city within
three years and offer employment on competitive terms to existing
employees."

She suggested there be a clause in the contract that the city be
granted the first right of refusal if the new owner declares bankruptcy or
puts the system up for sale.

About one-fourth of the homes to which the service is available
subscribe.

Under state law, the city can only provide the service as a
wholesaler; Internet service providers sell service to residents and
businesses. Rodeback said the network could be extended to more businesses
that desire it, increasing the revenue.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page D1



http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/182213/

[David]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:00:09 -0700, "Coyote" <noname@nomail.com>
wrote:

>BUTT I have read where it costs $2000 per home to install fiber optics and
>only
>$200 per home for WiFi. A few antennae scattered around on existing light
>poles or signs

Signs?

Who has signs in their neighborhoods?

[Coyote]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:1ol692tnbvnagb6aaaa23nj7rj8t17f9l7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:00:09 -0700, "Coyote" <noname@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>BUTT I have read where it costs $2000 per home to install fiber optics and
>>only
>>$200 per home for WiFi. A few antennae scattered around on existing
>>light
>>poles or signs
>
> Signs?
>
> Who has signs in their neighborhoods?
>
>

Casinos, Grocery Stores, Wall Mart. Strip Malls....Lots of cell phone firms
use sign towers
in some areas. The Eureka Casino supports cellphone antennae for example.
If a store can support a local wifi system they would be glad to allow a
antenna on their signs.

[David]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:40:47 -0700, "Coyote" <noname@nomail.com>
wrote:

>
>"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>news:1ol692tnbvnagb6aaaa23nj7rj8t17f9l7@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:00:09 -0700, "Coyote" <noname@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>BUTT I have read where it costs $2000 per home to install fiber optics and
>>>only
>>>$200 per home for WiFi. A few antennae scattered around on existing
>>>light
>>>poles or signs
>>
>> Signs?
>>
>> Who has signs in their neighborhoods?
>>
>>
>
>Casinos, Grocery Stores, Wall Mart. Strip Malls....Lots of cell phone firms
>use sign towers
>in some areas. The Eureka Casino supports cellphone antennae for example.
>If a store can support a local wifi system they would be glad to allow a
>antenna on their signs.
>
>
You live next to a Casino?

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> You live next to a Casino?

Its Olderdog. Of course he does.

[Rich]

Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
> over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?

You mean the superior technology that has required them to double their
repeaters and launch another satellite and add WiFi to approach (but still
not equal) XM's wearable capability?

Sirius is in trouble on this wearable deal and if it isn't obvious to you
I'm not surprised.

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:40:20 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>> Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
>> over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?
>
>You mean the superior technology that has required them to double their
>repeaters and launch another satellite and add WiFi to approach (but still
>not equal) XM's wearable capability?
>
>Sirius is in trouble on this wearable deal and if it isn't obvious to you
>I'm not surprised.
>
>
The only reason XM's portables work at all is that XM has 10 times
more repeaters than Sirius, due to the inferiority of XM's satellite
constellation vis a vis mobile applications.

How many millions does XM spend every year just on tower rent for
these repeaters?

[Zardoz]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:5n0892hu8vcbhp240t41n7hlut9e01d2ok@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:40:20 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
> <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
>>> over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?
>>
>>You mean the superior technology that has required them to double their
>>repeaters and launch another satellite and add WiFi to approach (but still
>>not equal) XM's wearable capability?
>>
>>Sirius is in trouble on this wearable deal and if it isn't obvious to you
>>I'm not surprised.
>>
>>
> The only reason XM's portables work at all is that XM has 10 times
> more repeaters than Sirius, due to the inferiority of XM's satellite
> constellation vis a vis mobile applications.
>
> How many millions does XM spend every year just on tower rent for
> these repeaters?
>

Dammit man, stop asking difficult questions with unpalatable answers -
Gollum will have an apoplexy just thinking about it.

[John Smith]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:5n0892hu8vcbhp240t41n7hlut9e01d2ok@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:40:20 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
> <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
>>> over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?
>>
>>You mean the superior technology that has required them to double their
>>repeaters and launch another satellite and add WiFi to approach (but still
>>not equal) XM's wearable capability?
>>
>>Sirius is in trouble on this wearable deal and if it isn't obvious to you
>>I'm not surprised.
>>
>>
> The only reason XM's portables work at all is that XM has 10 times
> more repeaters than Sirius, due to the inferiority of XM's satellite
> constellation vis a vis mobile applications.

Now David, you know this is not true. I live out in the boonies (lots of
huge trees, hills, obstructions) with no repeaters within 150 miles. My
Airware works OK with the internal antenna as long as I am in an
unobstructed area, but I have a ClipXT external that I use and it picks up
great even in most obstructed areas. It even works inside my house in lots
of areas. I am not saying it is perfect, but it does work without any
repeaters.

I don't know if the WiFi thing will work, but if it works like WiFi
computing does right now, it won't be worth much. They will have to make
big improvements before I would buy one.

I am not a pumper for either XM or Sirius, and I hope Sirius comes out with
a true wearable at a good price. If they do I will get one, until then, XM
is the only game in town.



> How many millions does XM spend every year just on tower rent for
> these repeaters?
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:04:05 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>news:5n0892hu8vcbhp240t41n7hlut9e01d2ok@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:40:20 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
>> <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
>>>> over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?
>>>
>>>You mean the superior technology that has required them to double their
>>>repeaters and launch another satellite and add WiFi to approach (but still
>>>not equal) XM's wearable capability?
>>>
>>>Sirius is in trouble on this wearable deal and if it isn't obvious to you
>>>I'm not surprised.
>>>
>>>
>> The only reason XM's portables work at all is that XM has 10 times
>> more repeaters than Sirius, due to the inferiority of XM's satellite
>> constellation vis a vis mobile applications.
>
>Now David, you know this is not true. I live out in the boonies (lots of
>huge trees, hills, obstructions) with no repeaters within 150 miles. My
>Airware works OK with the internal antenna as long as I am in an
>unobstructed area, but I have a ClipXT external that I use and it picks up
>great even in most obstructed areas. It even works inside my house in lots
>of areas. I am not saying it is perfect, but it does work without any
>repeaters.
>
>I don't know if the WiFi thing will work, but if it works like WiFi
>computing does right now, it won't be worth much. They will have to make
>big improvements before I would buy one.
>
>I am not a pumper for either XM or Sirius, and I hope Sirius comes out with
>a true wearable at a good price. If they do I will get one, until then, XM
>is the only game in town.
>
''Game in town''?

Without the repeaters the performance of my 2 portable XM units is
novelty grade at best. My body blocks the signal unless I wear an
antenna on my head. Then all I have to worry about is trees.

They may be OK for urban environments (because of the repeaters) or
places without trees but not worth the expense otherwise.

Sirius would work as well in the suburbs but their lack of ground
based transmitters definitely limits their ability to sincerely offer
a true portable.

Got nothing to do with their fine satellites.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

>>
> The only reason XM's portables work at all is that XM has 10 times
> more repeaters than Sirius, due to the inferiority of XM's satellite
> constellation vis a vis mobile applications.
>
> How many millions does XM spend every year just on tower rent for
> these repeaters?

First, XM has 4x, not 10x, the repeaters -- and Sirius is doubling theirs,
so it will be 2x when all is done.

But your premise is not correct; I have two MyFis that get excellent
reception with no repeaters and the new receivers are 10x better.

Repeaters are important in certain areas and surely can provide a better
experience for those who want to use their Inno walking around inside their
home or office. But they aren't essential for most listening.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

BTW -- as to expense, it is minimal. Hundreds of dollars per month per
repeater. Not thousands. No more than $10M/year versus SIRI's half that.
And SIRI has to rent space on a Ku for its uplink on top of that.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

>
> I am not a pumper for either XM or Sirius, and I hope Sirius comes out
> with a true wearable at a good price. If they do I will get one, until
> then, XM is the only game in town.

I hope they deliver a good wearable as well -- it will be bad for satellite
radio all the way around if they deliver another S50-styled flop. The last
thing XM needs is for people with bad Sirius experiences to assume they'll
have the same with XM.

Unfortunately, if you look at all the facts, it seems at least plausible to
expect they're having some pretty big problems getting it to work. They've
said they'll be releasing details soon, so perhaps we'll know something
within a couple weeks.

[John Smith]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:vb68925u12dbfm5giod11mf7sm6t8q5197@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:04:05 -0500, "John Smith"
> <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>>news:5n0892hu8vcbhp240t41n7hlut9e01d2ok@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:40:20 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
>>> <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Obviously with this superior technology that Sirius appears to have
>>>>> over XM, it will never work. Right Frontmed?
>>>>
>>>>You mean the superior technology that has required them to double their
>>>>repeaters and launch another satellite and add WiFi to approach (but
>>>>still
>>>>not equal) XM's wearable capability?
>>>>
>>>>Sirius is in trouble on this wearable deal and if it isn't obvious to
>>>>you
>>>>I'm not surprised.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The only reason XM's portables work at all is that XM has 10 times
>>> more repeaters than Sirius, due to the inferiority of XM's satellite
>>> constellation vis a vis mobile applications.
>>
>>Now David, you know this is not true. I live out in the boonies (lots of
>>huge trees, hills, obstructions) with no repeaters within 150 miles. My
>>Airware works OK with the internal antenna as long as I am in an
>>unobstructed area, but I have a ClipXT external that I use and it picks up
>>great even in most obstructed areas. It even works inside my house in
>>lots
>>of areas. I am not saying it is perfect, but it does work without any
>>repeaters.
>>
>>I don't know if the WiFi thing will work, but if it works like WiFi
>>computing does right now, it won't be worth much. They will have to make
>>big improvements before I would buy one.
>>
>>I am not a pumper for either XM or Sirius, and I hope Sirius comes out
>>with
>>a true wearable at a good price. If they do I will get one, until then,
>>XM
>>is the only game in town.
>>
> ''Game in town''?

The only company that has a live wearable.

> Without the repeaters the performance of my 2 portable XM units is
> novelty grade at best. My body blocks the signal unless I wear an
> antenna on my head. Then all I have to worry about is trees.

Sorry to hear that. I would be pissed if I paid $200 for a radio that
didn't pick up anything.
I bought mine in Austin and it worked fine around town with the internal
antenna - even inside my daughters house,(must have repeaters in Austin) but
when I got back where I live the internal antenna was very bad. I did some
research and found the ClipXT - it really works well. I do usually clip it
to my cap or pocket while working outside just to minimize problems while
moving around. In the car I can just lay the antenna on the dash and don't
have any problems at all. I have never unpacked the home or car antenna -
don't need them.

>
> They may be OK for urban environments (because of the repeaters) or
> places without trees but not worth the expense otherwise.

I guess it could be the area where I live (Texas) and I just have a good
line of sight to the satellites or something.

> Sirius would work as well in the suburbs but their lack of ground
> based transmitters definitely limits their ability to sincerely offer
> a true portable.
>
> Got nothing to do with their fine satellites.

Again, I don't care which company I go with, but XM was the only one with a
live wearble and that is what I wanted. I looked at the S50 and really
liked it, but it wouldn't work live without buying some huge backpack like
device full of equipment to make it function. I like the Inno, but I am
going to wait and see if it has any of the bugs like the S50. I'm in no
hurry so I am hoping that Sirius comes out with something really good in the
next few months.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Smith]

"All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone" <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote in message
news:_BVkg.148890$F_3.100335@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >
>> I am not a pumper for either XM or Sirius, and I hope Sirius comes out
>> with a true wearable at a good price. If they do I will get one, until
>> then, XM is the only game in town.
>
> I hope they deliver a good wearable as well -- it will be bad for
> satellite radio all the way around if they deliver another S50-styled
> flop. The last thing XM needs is for people with bad Sirius experiences
> to assume they'll have the same with XM.
>
> Unfortunately, if you look at all the facts, it seems at least plausible
> to expect they're having some pretty big problems getting it to work.
> They've said they'll be releasing details soon, so perhaps we'll know
> something within a couple weeks.

It will be very interesting to see what they come up with. I didn't care
for the shape of the S50 too much, so I hope their next offering is a
little more conventional in shape. It would be nice if they could come up
with something that had better battery life. I would rather have a larger
unit with great battery life than a tiny unit with no battery life. If they
add WiFi or something similar the available batteries wouldn't last long.
I'm not thrilled with only 5 hours on my Airware. As big as the unit is you
would think they could have come up with a longer lasting battery.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:38:45 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:


>I bought mine in Austin and it worked fine around town with the internal
>antenna - even inside my daughters house,(must have repeaters in Austin) but
>when I got back where I live the internal antenna was very bad. I did some
>research and found the ClipXT - it really works well. I do usually clip it
>to my cap or pocket while working outside just to minimize problems while
>moving around. In the car I can just lay the antenna on the dash and don't
>have any problems at all. I have never unpacked the home or car antenna -
>don't need them.
>
The main repeater is in the Westlake Tower Farm off Winnamaker.

Perhaps not so much in Podunk, but here in the big city we have plenty
of decent News/Talk that I just don't bother with the hassle of
wearing an antenna on my head. I have a dandy little AM/FM/WX Walkman
that works sufficiently well.

I don't make these determinations lightly. If XM had some kind of
compelling musical programming I might drag the 2go or the R2PAS
along, but they don't.

I really prefer talk radio most of the time any way and I have better
choices on the terrestrial bands.

I have a neat little music player for my NWOBHM compilations or my
Chess box sets.

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:52:09 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>BTW -- as to expense, it is minimal. Hundreds of dollars per month per
>repeater. Not thousands. No more than $10M/year versus SIRI's half that.
>And SIRI has to rent space on a Ku for its uplink on top of that.
>
>
Bull----. Repeater space is well into 4 figures per month in major
markets.

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:49:23 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>
>First, XM has 4x, not 10x, the repeaters -- and Sirius is doubling theirs,
>so it will be 2x when all is done.
>
How do you know?

[John Smith]

"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
news:5nf8925vgt3cqbpmsqdl5hjudh0nbo607n@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:38:45 -0500, "John Smith"
> <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I bought mine in Austin and it worked fine around town with the internal
>>antenna - even inside my daughters house,(must have repeaters in Austin)
>>but
>>when I got back where I live the internal antenna was very bad. I did
>>some
>>research and found the ClipXT - it really works well. I do usually clip
>>it
>>to my cap or pocket while working outside just to minimize problems while
>>moving around. In the car I can just lay the antenna on the dash and
>>don't
>>have any problems at all. I have never unpacked the home or car antenna -
>>don't need them.
>>
> The main repeater is in the Westlake Tower Farm off Winnamaker.
>
> Perhaps not so much in Podunk, but here in the big city we have plenty
> of decent News/Talk that I just don't bother with the hassle of
> wearing an antenna on my head. I have a dandy little AM/FM/WX Walkman
> that works sufficiently well.

> I don't make these determinations lightly. If XM had some kind of
> compelling musical programming I might drag the 2go or the R2PAS
> along, but they don't.
>
> I really prefer talk radio most of the time any way and I have better
> choices on the terrestrial bands.

That was the main reason I wanted satellite radio. Here there are about 2
and 1/2 AM stations that I can get and they really have crappy News/Talk
programs. When the sun goes down (and sometimes before) the stations go
away. After I got the XM, I got hooked on Old Time Radio and Sonic Theater
and listen to them most of the time. I wish XM would get rid of some of the
"music" channels and convert them to something like Sonic Theater. I
haven't checked Sirius lately, but I understand they have more talk
channels. I will be looking at this when my subscription is up, and if
Sirius get a wearable ready.

>
> I have a neat little music player for my NWOBHM compilations or my
> Chess box sets.


I hate to admit it but I still have a Sony minidisk player that I use for my
portable "iPod" device. Had it for years, and can't find a reason to dump
it (runs for about 90 hours on one AA battery) and pay lots of money for an
"iPod" or equivalent. I just hope either XM or Sirius will soon have a unit
that is both music player and receiver - and is reliable.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:57:40 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>"David" <rickets@knac.com> wrote in message
>news:5nf8925vgt3cqbpmsqdl5hjudh0nbo607n@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:38:45 -0500, "John Smith"
>> <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>That was the main reason I wanted satellite radio. Here there are about 2
>and 1/2 AM stations that I can get and they really have crappy News/Talk
>programs. When the sun goes down (and sometimes before) the stations go
>away. After I got the XM, I got hooked on Old Time Radio and Sonic Theater
>and listen to them most of the time. I wish XM would get rid of some of the
>"music" channels and convert them to something like Sonic Theater. I
>haven't checked Sirius lately, but I understand they have more talk
>channels. I will be looking at this when my subscription is up, and if
>Sirius get a wearable ready.
>
>>
When I lived in South Texas most of my night listening was to KOA 850
Denver and WLS 890 Chicago. WWL 870 is pretty interesting since the
storm. Texas mainstream talk radio is almost exclusively neofascist
propaganda. Pretty grim.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

>
> It will be very interesting to see what they come up with. I didn't care
> for the shape of the S50 too much, so I hope their next offering is a
> little more conventional in shape. It would be nice if they could come up
> with something that had better battery life. I would rather have a larger
> unit with great battery life than a tiny unit with no battery life. If
> they add WiFi or something similar the available batteries wouldn't last
> long. I'm not thrilled with only 5 hours on my Airware. As big as the
> unit is you would think they could have come up with a longer lasting
> battery.

I think these chipsets are just power hungry and for now that's going to be
a tough problem -- for XM *AND* Sirius. Sirius used a very high-end
[expensive] battery in the S50 to get the battery life to an acceptable
level. I've been told by people who know that they will need the same type
of battery but 3x the size for the upcoming device (that was before they
announce WiFi) -- so clearly, it will have to be bigger than the S50.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

>>First, XM has 4x, not 10x, the repeaters -- and Sirius is doubling theirs,
>>so it will be 2x when all is done.
>>
> How do you know?

Because I read both companies' 10ks.

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

> Bull----. Repeater space is well into 4 figures per month in major
> markets.

Perhaps. And $100/month in not-so-major markets.

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:18:43 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>>>First, XM has 4x, not 10x, the repeaters -- and Sirius is doubling theirs,
>>>so it will be 2x when all is done.
>>>
>> How do you know?
>
>Because I read both companies' 10ks.
>
>
Then please be so good as to paste us a quote. Thanks.

[David]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:19:39 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>> Bull----. Repeater space is well into 4 figures per month in major
>> markets.
>
>Perhaps. And $100/month in not-so-major markets.
>
>
Is that what you rent your pine tree to the local REACT group for?

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

>
> Then please be so good as to paste us a quote. Thanks.
>

Go read it yourself, nitwit.

[David]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:16:48 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
<DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Then please be so good as to paste us a quote. Thanks.
>>
>
>Go read it yourself, nitwit.
>
>
Thanks.

[CodeMonkey]

Coyote wrote:
>> Again, the service is NOT working correctly yet, and it is costing over
>> 2 million to implement, and upwards of $400,000 per year to maintain.
>> Think it will last long? Probably not.
>
> Seems to me the service is still active today.
>

Active, but barely usable to a lot of the residents.

> BUTT I have read where it costs $2000 per home to install fiber optics and
> only
> $200 per home for WiFi. A few antennae scattered around on existing light
> poles or signs
> would be cheaper to maintain than buried fiber optics that gets dug up all
> the time as well
> as the accessory support equipment. In fact the cost to maintain a fiber
> system should exceed that of wifi.
>

You need to provide proof to those costs, until then it's just hearsay.

>> -
>> At first, a desktop computer in Lusardi's house could use the Wi-Fi
>> network with no problem, but his laptop would only work outdoors. Even
>> then it was too slow and unreliable, so he kept his $20 per month Sprint
>> DSL service.
>
> Idiot could have done a upgrade to a better WiFi card...they run around $45.
> A one time fee of $45 is much better than a $20 per month fee for DSL.
> Where I live DSL costs $49 per month. The only other option is dialup.
>

Most people will not do that when they can just use their already
existing DSL. Especially if they already purchased one card.

>
>> Now the desktop doesn't even work, and he's completely abandoned the idea
>> of dropping his pay service and using the network.
>
> A device that costs near $160 (again a one time fee) that would provide a
> strong wifi
> signal throught the interior of large home or building could be installed
> and his desktop
> with proper wifi card would function well.
>

Again, most people are not going to do this.

>> "It's just total frustration," Lusardi said. "I'm going to stay with the
>> DSL and just forget it, because I don't think it's going to work. Very few
>> people are going to use it, and they're going to say it's underutilized
>> and they're going to shut it down."
>
>
> The guy is must be a idiot or a frontmed clone that works for a current
> landline ISP in
> St. Cloud
>

Why? Just because he wants to pay for faster service than what the city
can provide?

>> And the other areas that were all mentioned as having plans to start a
>> free wi-fi service...
>>
>> -
>> "Other cities like Tempe, Arizona, have networks over a larger area (187
>> square miles), but access isn't free. Planned projects in places like
>> Chicago and Philadelphia would also dwarf St. Cloud's network, but also
>> require a fee for access."
>> -
>>
>
> Some of the cities do have a two tier system. Free if the user accepts pop
> up type ads
> or ad free if they pay a small fee.
>
> Then there is this:
>
> "BARBARA CHRISTIANSEN - North County Staff
> American Fork bought a broadband network in 2002 to provide
> lightening-fast Internet to residents. Now the system might be up for sale
> or lease.
>
> The City Council voted Tuesday to declare the system as surplus, then
> decided to request proposals from possible buyers or leasers for all or part
> of the network. The proposals are due July 13.
>
> Although the city is looking at proposals, it could reject them, said
> City Councilman Shirl LeBaron.
>
> Since the city purchased the system from Switchpoint, formerly
> AirSwitch, it has spent more than $6 million in bonds to pay for upgrades to
> the system. Including the bond payments, which continue for seven more
> years, the system has been losing $1.2 million annually, said Councilwoman
> Heidi Rodeback.
>
> Rodeback said the city is committed to the system and wants to ensure
> it remains available to residents and businesses.
>
> "It is believed that under private ownership, more capital will flow
> to meet the system's needs, and that market forces will bring about the
> necessary upgrades to and expansion of the existing network," she said.
>
> Several in attendance Tuesday urged the city to postpone action. Mayor
> Heber Thompson explained the need to proceed.
>
> "We are at a significant loss position," he said. "We don't have the
> prospect of getting much better very soon."
>
> Rodeback suggested several requirements be placed on those who apply
> to buy or lease the system.
>
> "They should honor all existing ISP contracts," she said. "They should
> offer the triple play," which she said includes offering telephone,
> television and Internet service together.
>
> "They should extend the network to the remainder of the city within
> three years and offer employment on competitive terms to existing
> employees."
>
> She suggested there be a clause in the contract that the city be
> granted the first right of refusal if the new owner declares bankruptcy or
> puts the system up for sale.
>
> About one-fourth of the homes to which the service is available
> subscribe.
>
> Under state law, the city can only provide the service as a
> wholesaler; Internet service providers sell service to residents and
> businesses. Rodeback said the network could be extended to more businesses
> that desire it, increasing the revenue.
>
> This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page D1
>
>
>
> http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/182213/
>
>
>
>
>

Cities cannot provide services like this and expect it to last.

[CodeMonkey]

David wrote:
> ''Game in town''?
>
> Without the repeaters the performance of my 2 portable XM units is
> novelty grade at best. My body blocks the signal unless I wear an
> antenna on my head. Then all I have to worry about is trees.
>
> They may be OK for urban environments (because of the repeaters) or
> places without trees but not worth the expense otherwise.
>
> Sirius would work as well in the suburbs but their lack of ground
> based transmitters definitely limits their ability to sincerely offer
> a true portable.
>
> Got nothing to do with their fine satellites.
>

Then you must have equipment issues. Thousands of people use these on a
daily basis and never have those problems. People that previously had
trouble before have purchased the ClipXT and now have awesome reception,
even in areas where the signal was never received before.

I think you have equipment issues.

[CodeMonkey]

David wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:49:23 GMT, "All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone"
> <DeadShrimp@NOMail.com> wrote:
>
>> First, XM has 4x, not 10x, the repeaters -- and Sirius is doubling theirs,
>> so it will be 2x when all is done.
>>
> How do you know?
>

Why don't you both provide your proof! What a concept! lol

[David]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:52:10 GMT, CodeMonkey <spammers@suck.com>
wrote:

>David wrote:
>> ''Game in town''?
>>
>> Without the repeaters the performance of my 2 portable XM units is
>> novelty grade at best. My body blocks the signal unless I wear an
>> antenna on my head. Then all I have to worry about is trees.
>>
>> They may be OK for urban environments (because of the repeaters) or
>> places without trees but not worth the expense otherwise.
>>
>> Sirius would work as well in the suburbs but their lack of ground
>> based transmitters definitely limits their ability to sincerely offer
>> a true portable.
>>
>> Got nothing to do with their fine satellites.
>>
>
>Then you must have equipment issues. Thousands of people use these on a
>daily basis and never have those problems. People that previously had
>trouble before have purchased the ClipXT and now have awesome reception,
>even in areas where the signal was never received before.
>
>I think you have equipment issues.

So you're saying that even though I spent 100s of dollars on
''Everything included'' packages, I still need more?

I say bull----. The signal doesn't go through tress or human flesh.
Unless there are repeaters you need line of sight. i.e. wear the
antenna on your Al Franken head and stay South of the woods.

[Dr. Droo]

J. Fowler wrote:
> Delphi makes a signal repeater for XM related products. I could plug one
> of these in and walk around in secure areas receiving every single XM
> channel, not just what's online.

I'm not going to be installing signal repeaters in a colocation
facility when I could just plug in a compact AP into my switch and have
Sirius while I work. I don't own or work for the colocation
facilities, anything else would be too much effort.

--D

[Dr. Droo]

David wrote:
> Bull----. Repeater space is well into 4 figures per month in major
> markets.

Cell carriers pay near the 4 figures here per month in various parts of
the tri-state area. Depending on where it is and how important the
location is, the price can go up from there..

If memory serves T-mobile is paying 1650 a month to be on top of the
water tower at the height of the city. They put a 60 foot mast up
there as well. Half goes to the city (land) and half goes to the water
district (water tower).

--D

[CodeMonkey]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> J. Fowler wrote:
>> Delphi makes a signal repeater for XM related products. I could plug one
>> of these in and walk around in secure areas receiving every single XM
>> channel, not just what's online.
>
> I'm not going to be installing signal repeaters in a colocation
> facility when I could just plug in a compact AP into my switch and have
> Sirius while I work. I don't own or work for the colocation
> facilities, anything else would be too much effort.
>
> --D
>

Plugging your own AP into a collocation facility to stream multimedia
content could violate their company Internet policies. Using a signal
repeater would not.

[Dr. Droo]

CodeMonkey wrote:
> Plugging your own AP into a collocation facility to stream multimedia
> content could violate their company Internet policies. Using a signal
> repeater would not.

I don't see anything to suggest thats the case.

I'd think most colocation facilities would be more disinterested in me
plugging something in nowhere near the cabinet with a view of a window.
The cabinet power and the bandwidth are mine, while the power jack
near the window and the window isn't.

--D

[All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone]

>
> Cell carriers pay near the 4 figures here per month in various parts of
> the tri-state area. Depending on where it is and how important the
> location is, the price can go up from there..

Bull----. Not in Maine.

[Dr. Droo]

All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> Bull----. Not in Maine.

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/default.aspx?a=103437&template=print-article.htm

1650 a month.

By the way, they pay about 800-1000 on farms and other locations too.
Just so happens family and friends work in the cellular industry,
dumbass.

--D

[Rich]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> All My Shrimp Was Dead and Gone wrote:
> > Bull----. Not in Maine.
>
> http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/default.aspx?a=103437&template=print-article.htm
>
> 1650 a month.
>
> By the way, they pay about 800-1000 on farms and other locations too.
> Just so happens family and friends work in the cellular industry,
> dumbass.
>
> --D


Damn, made old David Ray Frontmed look like a FOOL again. LOL.....

[Dr. Droo]

Rich wrote:
> Damn, made old David Ray Frontmed look like a FOOL again. LOL.....

Nextel never put anything up there either as far as I know.There's
T-Mobile and a WISP up on the standpipe. You can get a Nextel signal
in the city but it's something along the lines of 1 or 2 bars. The
next closest Nextel coverage area is 60-80 miles one direction and 30
the other.

Cellular carriers generally own their towers here (Northern ME).
T-mobile and Cingular wanting to come up the interstate involved them
talking leasing companies into building towers for them to rent space
on.

T-mobile has some of their own sites here in the city and actually
sells here, the only national carrier that does. They have a call
center in Oakland Maine and hire over 600 people from this state.

--D

[Rich]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Damn, made old David Ray Frontmed look like a FOOL again. LOL.....
>
> Nextel never put anything up there either as far as I know.
> --D

You won't be hearing from Dead Shrip David Ray Frontmed for a few days
until his sting diminishes. What a fool.

[David]

On 20 Jun 2006 22:43:57 -0700, "Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> Damn, made old David Ray Frontmed look like a FOOL again. LOL.....
>
>Nextel never put anything up there either as far as I know.There's
>T-Mobile and a WISP up on the standpipe. You can get a Nextel signal
>in the city but it's something along the lines of 1 or 2 bars. The
>next closest Nextel coverage area is 60-80 miles one direction and 30
>the other.
>
>Cellular carriers generally own their towers here (Northern ME).
>T-mobile and Cingular wanting to come up the interstate involved them
>talking leasing companies into building towers for them to rent space
>on.
>
>T-mobile has some of their own sites here in the city and actually
>sells here, the only national carrier that does. They have a call
>center in Oakland Maine and hire over 600 people from this state.
>
>--D
>
A 50 Watt cell site costs less lent a 3 KW SDARS repeater. There is
more real estate and power consumption involved.

[Dr. Droo]

David wrote:
> A 50 Watt cell site costs less lent a 3 KW SDARS repeater. There is
> more real estate and power consumption involved.

In places like VT you have to undergo a whole process about
'environmental balance' too. I'm sure there are other places in the
U.S. that will make a SDARS carrier do the same type of deal.

--D

[Rich]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> David wrote:
> > A 50 Watt cell site costs less lent a 3 KW SDARS repeater. There is
> > more real estate and power consumption involved.
>
> In places like VT you have to undergo a whole process about
> 'environmental balance' too. I'm sure there are other places in the
> U.S. that will make a SDARS carrier do the same type of deal.
>
> --D

Are there any permitting costs?

[Dr. Droo]

Rich wrote:
> Are there any permitting costs?

There are permitting requirements and costs here. I assume there are
elsewhere too. Some towns here have specific requirements regarding
heights as far as if you can use a building permit or need something
more involved.

In VT they probably have to pay more because of the friction involved
in putting structures up. VT has more NIMBYs than the rest of Northern
New England. Those same people call the cell carriers here and bitch
about coverage, then say they were at the town meeting that shot down
building a new cell tower.

But it is nice that ham operators can put up structures in VT now with
less friction.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/06/07/2/?nc=1

--D

[Rich]

I see the XM Tout David Ray Dead Frontmed Shrimp disappeared from this
thread after you made look like the moron he is. Why didn't he come
back to defend his "facts"?

[Dr. Droo]

Rich wrote:
> I see the XM Tout David Ray Dead Frontmed Shrimp disappeared from this
> thread after you made look like the moron he is. Why didn't he come
> back to defend his "facts"?

Frontmed doesn't know a damn thing about this region. That's already
been proven time and time again.

I'm tellin ya Rich, great place to go fishing and whatnot. :-)

--D

[Rich]

Dr. Droo wrote:
> Frontmed doesn't know a damn thing about this region. That's already
> been proven time and time again.
>
> I'm tellin ya Rich, great place to go fishing and whatnot. :-)
>
> --D

By the results of the latest FLW Outdoors tournament, I'd say it is
better than great.
http://www.flwoutdoors.com/

BTW, EVERYONE knows that Dead Frontmed David Ray Shrimp doesn't have a
clue about satellite radio much less anything to do with anything
outside a trailer park in Arkansas.