Satellite Radio (Sirius/XM) Ping List
Freepmail me to be added.
Posted on 04/05/2006 1:25:50 PM PDT by It Aint Easy
Since the inception of satellite radio, consumers have been forced to choose between two competing networks, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., depending on the kind of hardware they buy.
But new documents show the rival companies have designed a receiver capable of carrying both services — a development that could significantly alter the competitive landscape of the emerging industry.
However, despite spending more than $5-million (U.S.) on the project, XM and Sirius have no plans to let consumers in Canada or the U.S. get their hands on the devices.
Though the broadcast licences granted in the United States call for the development of compatible technology to give consumers more flexibility, a loophole only requires the companies to design the radios — they don't actually need to make or sell them. In Canada, the decision is being left up to the industry.
Since neither company has much incentive to introduce new radios that would make it easier for consumers who pay a monthly fee to jump to the competing service, the blueprints are likely to be shelved.
“We signed an agreement with XM Radio ... to develop a unified standard for satellite radios,” say documents filed by Sirius to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“In 2005, we substantially completed the design of a radio capable of receiving both services.”
Despite the revelation, a spokesman for Sirius said the companies have no intention to take the matter further in the U.S., while XM said in an e-mailed statement there are no plans to bring the dual-service receivers to market in Canada.
The development has angered consumer advocates who say the companies are flouting the U.S. Federal Communications Commission licence requirements to avoid having to open their industry to increased competition. Washington, D.C.-based XM and New York-based Sirius have a duopoly in the U.S. satellite radio market, as do their affiliates in Canada.
Consumers are required to buy a receiver from either company to get access to the service. If customers want to switch networks, they must buy another receiver with a price tag of roughly $50 to $400.
That structure contributes to a very low churn rate in satellite radio — the percentage of people who cancel their monthly subscriptions — compared with industries such as the wireless sector, where cellphones are transferable across networks.
Harold Feld, a senior vice-president of the U.S. Media Access Project, a group of lawyers that represents consumers at FCC hearings, accused the industry of trying to stifle competition.
“The idea of interoperability is to encourage competition between the pay services,” Mr. Feld said. “Without it, nobody's ever going to switch, which is of course why the companies don't want to bring it to market because there's not that much in it for them.”
The FCC is looking into the matter in the U.S. However, officials would not comment. A source close to the situation said the commission originally didn't envisage the companies would react as they have. In Canada, regulators did not make dual-service receivers a requirement of the licences issued last year.
Sirius spokesman Jim Collins said the partnership between Sirius and XM was prompted solely by the FCC requirements. Otherwise, the companies would not have pursued the joint venture.
Both companies operate separate networks of distinctive channels and have been battling each other for market share in the U.S., where satellite radio launched five years ago, and in Canada, where it began in December.
“We basically worked on this as a result of the FCC asking us to do so. Would it have been something to approach had the FCC not required it? Most likely not,” Mr. Collins said. “There wouldn't have been any real impetus for it.”
Mr. Collins said there is no reason for Sirius to introduce the dual-service radios in Canada, a move that would likely shake up the business models of each company less than five months into their existence. Similarly, XM Canada said federal regulations do not require such competition and that it has no intention to pursue it.
“This idea has floated around for five years and neither company has any plans to implement interoperability and no timeline for doing so,” XM Canada said in an e-mail.
Observers have said the advent of such technology could pose a threat to both companies, forcing them to lower their prices or market their services more aggressively to retain customers.
However, Mr. Collins said the dual-service receivers may be costly to manufacture and the industry isn't convinced consumers will pay.
“If these things do in fact get built, there still is a question as to what the cost will be, which at this point we can't speculate,” Mr. Collins said. “There was no timeline set [by the FCC to develop the radios] other than the fact they wanted both companies to make a concerted effort.”
The FCC has opened a proceeding into the matter. Mr. Feld said the decision shouldn't be left up to the companies.
“The argument that the companies are putting forward — that all they have to do is design the radios, they don't have to make them — is nonsense,” Mr. Feld said. “It clearly undermines the commission's intent when it granted the licence.”
Interesting tid bit. Too bad for those of you who pay for both.
I think the writing is on the wall. There is a lot of interest in satellite radio, but not enough to support two companies right now (see: AFL vs. NFL). The result will be a merger.
Follow the letter of the law but stifle the technology. What's more, their design can be used to shut down competing designs even if they do not go to market.
They both stink.
I have shipmates who carry Sirius and xm radios. I've spent plenty of time listening to both.
Not worth paying for at all.
Both services have "conservative" programming on one channel. The programming is weak. Only show worth the listen is Laura Ingraham. Michael Reagan seems to play all day in repeats. I'll say this as gently as possible about Mike....he's just dumb. No wonder they carry him most.
Lots of lib talk channels- npr, heir-America, chick channels, etc.
After one year of tryin'- I'm not buyin'.
AV
Aroostook Beauty.com
If they had receivers that could handle both, I think they might be surprised how many people would subscribe to both.
After all, some people have both HBO and Showtime.
maybe not...Pepsi or Coke, Chevy or Ford, Leno or Letterman, boxers or briefs..no wait. :)
Actually, it's the opposite with me---I think XM's music selections (maybe not the broadcaster's fault) have weakened, so I listen to more talk radio---Glenn Beck, for ex.
I live in an area that doesnt have many radio stations. Its great for me as I use it primarily for my evening jog (bought the portable xm radio) and having that many music stations helps my routine. I also like having fox sports, sporting news and espn radio since we dont have a sports talk station around here.
What! No pictures of Houlton?
Alright, I see you have a ping list so I assume you know something about this. I hope you can answer a few questions for me.
I'm planning to buy the hardware tomorrow, but haven't decided which yet and I've now read through a couple of threads to try to get informed. I still have some questions.
I was told that Sirius is better in covering football. Does that mean both NFL and college football? Would XM still be a big improvement in football coverage over what most people can get through AM/FM? Do you know if XM plans to bring aboard more football coverage?
How do the two compare in conservative and news talk? Are there many big names on either one? Which one carries Laura Ingraham? Is Glenn Beck on one? How about Michael Medved?
I spend about 5-6 hours a day in my car and listen to music about as much as sports and talk radio. I sampled XM recently and loved the jam bands/progressive station (they were playing the complete 40+ minute version of Thick as a Brick by Jethro Tull when I was in there, something I know you won't hear on any commercial station). I also love jazz and oldies. Which one has a better lineup in your opinion?
Hey, sorry to throw so many questions at you. I'll understand if you don't have time to answer all my questions, but if you can answer by tomorrow morning, I'd sure appreciate hearing what you have to say.
Sirius has the NFL. Sirius and XM carry certain college conferences (football and basketball), so it depends on which team you are wanting to hear. XM has Major League Baseball. You might want to check out the websites of XM and Sirius to see what other differences they have in sports programming.
XM has Laura Ingraham (on a three hour delay) and Glenn Beck, but no longer has Michael Medved. Sirius used to have Laura Ingraham, but doesn't anymore. Sirius doesn't have Glenn Beck or Michael Medved.
Personally, I prefer XM's music programming to that of Sirius. We've had XM since 2001 and can't imagine being without it. Again, you might want to check out their respective websites to compare lineups and see where your musical tastes are best represented.
Hey, thanks for the information. I'm really leaning towards XM. I love football, but I'm almost never in my car on Sundays to listen to the NFL anyway. I know XM covers Pac 10 football and now that I live in Tennessee I miss Pac 10 football (I graduated from UW) so that's a big plus. I sampled the music stations on XM and loved the variety.
I'm putting the radio into an old Buick I just bought, but the radio doesn't work so today I'm going to install another radio in it so that the XM can work through it. Hope this all works.
Thanks again for the information.
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.