Posted on 03/12/2006 3:46:06 AM PST by SamAdams76
Every now and then, I'll hear Howard Stern or some other station bleed into what I am listening to. Always when I am in traffic and if I slow down and let traffic around me pass by me, it goes away. I always wondered how Howard Stern could be coming through my FM radio since he is no longer being broadcast on FM. Now I know.
Shirley you can't be Sirius.
The same reason we pay for cable television - no commercials!
Well, that was the promise, anyway.
True, but it also costs money to buy those CD's and cassettes. If you buy just one CD a month, you are already paying more than what you would pay for satellite radio - over 100 channels of crystal-clear, commercial-free music in virtually any genre or subgenre you are in the mood for. Then you have another 50+ channels of news/talk/sports on top of that (but those DO have commmercials).
I've had satellite radio for nearly two years now and it is one of the best bargains out there for your entertainment dollar.
I do. Hundreds of stations, zero commnericals, and the DJs don't play the same 20 songs over and over and talk for minutes on end. They have REAL DJs again!! Can you believe it? PLus, the stations are genre specific. There's an entire station just for progressive rock and jam bands. There's one for just modern jazz. Or just blues. Blues, 24/7!
I've heard more music that I've never heard before since I've had XM. It's truly awesome. I'm happy to pay for it because FM bites the big one.
Yeah, to hell with them!
You'll make a great parent some day.
Cousin Brucie? Arnie "Woo Woo" Ginsburg? Wolfman Jack?
An argument by analogy; a subscription radio service is to my wallet as a wall-wart is to my wallet. I'd rather have an on-off button that stops the expense as well as the power.
The problem is NOT satellite radio; it is digital radio. Normal narrow-band radio stations are adding digital signals to their band and these are bleeding into neighboring stations. Yeah, it's sexier if you can blame Howard Stern and you (well, at lest this guy) won't get on page 1 without fudging.
I just did an experiement. I have Sirius and use 89.3 on my car radio to receive it.
I parked the car outside (right beside the house), turned on the Sirius then my home stereo. I get fuzz on 89.3 in my house. Then I turned on the Sirius in the Wife's vehicle and did a seek with my car radio. I didn't get a hit at about 30 feet separation.
So where are these "powerful" Sirius or XM radios that supposedly blast their broadcasts all over the place? I would LOVE to be able to run the Sirius from my car to my home but it just won't work.
A few weeks ago I had to go to my nearest Home Depot. On the way I had to change the Sirius frequency because the NPR station in Buffalo,NY - about 90 miles away - came right in over the Sirius signal. I can't believe that NPR had a zillion watts of power so it would appear to me that the Sirius signal is extremely low. Perhaps the receivers picking up these signals are extremely sensitive?
"I've heard more music that I've never heard before since I've had XM. It's truly awesome. I'm happy to pay for it because FM bites the big one."
Amen. Prior to getting my new car with XM, I hadn't listened to free radio in 10 years. Now, I'm sold on satellite radio. XMComedy is one of my favorites, along with Fred. XMComedy gets to leave the "adult" words in and Fred playes the music I was weaned on and songs I haven't heard in YEARS.
Summation: I won't listen to crap, broadcast radio for free but am more than happy to pay for satellite.
I gladly pay for my XM so that I might travel across Texas without having to search for stations.
So what? That's pretty much the definition of argument. It is pretty hard to argue without the use of analogy. Try it sometime. It's like trying to do a cross-examination without being able to ask questions. See, another analogy to make my point!
Anyway, when measuring the relative value of a consumer product, one must consider "utility." It might be cheaper to listen to FM radio but if you are constantly pushing buttons to get away from the yakking DJs, the non-stop blitz of commercials, and the same old 20 songs over and over and over again, then the "utility" of FM radio is very low. On the other hand, if you pay the $10 a month for satellite radio and you find yourself listening to quality music for hours on end without having to fuss with the buttons and get yourself frustrated trying to find a station that is actually playing music you like, then the utlity of satellite radio is very high and worth the nominal price.
Time is money too. With FM radio, I would be constantly pushing the buttons, trying to find a station that happens to be playing some decent music. Looking at it from that perspective, listening to FM radio was actually much more expensive because it consumed so much of my time.
Here is another way to look at utility. You buy a treadmill for $1,000 at an exercise store and take it home. You use it maybe 10 times before it gets permanently unplugged from the wall and gathers dust. It costed you $100 each time you worked out on that treadmill! On the other hand, let's say that you ended up using that treadmill 200 days a year for five years. That's 1000 uses. Therefore that treadmill only costed you $1 per workout.
See, ANOTHER analogy. But it does prove the point that the utility of an item is directly proportional to the relative cost of that item. If I pay $10 a month for commercial-free radio, it may see a waste of money to those who are content with "free" FM but to somebody like me, who commutes to and from work 2 hours per day, I'm getting 50 hours of use from it which comes to about twenty cents an hour.
Twenty cents an hour is well worth it to me to have zero commercials and good quality music during my commute to and from work. It may well not be worth it to people who are content with the wasteland that is AM/FM radio today.
I spend a lot of time behind the wheel. Fox news and NASCAR are my most listened to stations. If it's late at nite, I put mood music on. It's certainly worth it to me.
'Pretty much the definition of argument.' Oh, well. So much for an argument from first principles or two thousand years of development of formal logic.
As to the wasteland of mass media; there is not a functioning TV band reciever in this household and the AM/FM is hooked to the rotating yagi on a fifty foot tower at the highest point of this Island.
Point proof? Sam Adams of 1776 might have known of proof and of value measured in other than dollars. You too have confused Republican conservatism with commercialism.
Democrats, Republicans and mass media constitute America's cacocracy.
Your treadmill anecdote; the cost of my bicycle has vanished in our 50,000+ miles. I analogize nothing, your too broad universals are defeated by a single counter example.
That's exactly my point but evidently you did not read my reply very thoroughly. The cost of that bicycle vanished with utility just as the cost of my satellite radio vanished with utility. Now if you were like some folks who buy bicycles who ride them once or twice and them stow them in the garage forever more, then that bicycle would have very low utility and it would not be a wise purchase.
And your Sam Adams analogy proved my point that it is very difficult to make an argument without analogy. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Different strokes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.