XM & Sirius Satellite Radio

grutza

This was XM. I had been a subscriber for 2 1/2 years on the unit they offered 3 free months.

qbrozen

I know that I've been an XM subscriber for over 3 years and it never occurred to me that I could get a lower price until I started reading this thread.

But you have to remember, not everyone will come to this thread. So it took you 3 years to find out, but many many subscribers will NEVER find out. It will be the minority who will fight for a better deal.

I'm not saying they are guaranteed to make deals or that they will even do it without a big fight. But I for one will not pay full price for satellite radio. It is an unnecessary expense, and in these tight times, those are the first to go. Back in November, I renewed both of my radios for a total of about $140 for the year. That's less than $6/mo/radio. Come next November, there is no guarantee I will renew again unless it is still that inexpensive.

upstatedoc

They started stoning me again to re-subscribe. They are calling my cell phone now. How did they get my number? Anyway, the rep started spitting out all the "great offers" they have.....I finally had to interrupt her and say "If Sirius can give me the same deal as XM I would be glad to re-activate my account"

She says "well, xm and sirius have now merged"

Great, then it should be no problem to get the same deal as xm ($77/yr)

Not, the best they can do is $119/yr

I told her to call me back when they can match xm.....I haven't heard yet.

It's not my fault they gave Stern a kabillion dollar contract. :sick:

tpe

I don't think that XM and Sirius have merged yet. When they do I'd be surprised if there is a difference in what they charge. Especially when they finally come out with receivers that are capable of receiving either service's stations. They may start offering different programming packages or some ala carte stations, which would effect the subscription rate.

qbrozen

I don't get it. So if you've already got XM, what would you need sirius for? And the rep only illustrated that point by stating they've merged.

upstatedoc

My VW has the Sirius compatibility, I have XM in my acura. I don't have portable units, it's hard wired into the car.

carnaught

........it would make sense if all XM and Sirius units were able to get the new revised post merger format. Newer marketed units would then all be uniform.

parviz

Each one has its own specific programming, of course one has more advertising in their programs than the other, but that also can change with the merger, but the main deciding factor is what program one wants to listen to and who, ie. Stern in Sirius not XM, Opera in XM, etc.

upstatedoc

Sirius is calling my cell phone every night right around dinnertime. I know it's them so I don't answer and they don't leave a message.

I must be on some kind of list....

They know that I am a potential customer if they match my price so they're calling each time with a better deal.

I figure I'll hold out for another month, answer the phone and see what deal they're offering then. :P

Anyone else getting the full-court press from Sirius?

carnaught

I figure I'll hold out for another month, answer the phone and see what deal they're offering then.


They call you to reup their service but offer no deals. Don't get your hopes up.

upstatedoc

Well, I answered the phone last night and it was a recording from Sirius wanting me to "press 1 for great deals on a sirius subscription". :sick:

tpe

So far no final approval from the FCC on this merger. A lot of groups are lobbying hard for the FCC to impose all sorts of conditions, supposedly to protect consumers. In the meantime both companies are hemorrhaging tens of millions of dollars. This is obviously unsustainable. On top of that Sirius's CFO recently stated that they may let this merger fall through if the FCC conditions are too severe. So let's say they don't merge. It then becomes a matter of who can survive the longest at which point they will have a so-called "monopoly" even though we'll all still have options when it comes to listening to music, news, sports, etc.. What exactly will the FCC have accomplished other than drive the surviving company further in debt and leave customers of the failed company with nothing? I don't see how this government agency is protecting the consumer.

dwynne

No one told Sirius to overpay Howard Stern or NASCAR to try to gain market share. When they did I figured that would either let them pass XM in subs or put them under - and probably the latter.

If one or both goes under I would bet someone else will step in with a leaner, meaner business model and could find a way to make it pay. Just let me keep hearing commercial free music with a wide variety of choices and I (and most others I know) will be fine.

Dennis

carnaught

Well, I answered the phone last night and it was a recording from Sirius wanting me to "press 1 for great deals on a sirius subscription.

Did you check to see what their idea of "great deals" was?

upstatedoc

You know, it was a recording and I figure if a human can't call me to discuss it then I'm not going to bother. They'll probably try calling again tonight.............

fintail

I wonder if there could be tiered pricing schemes like cable TV . On Sirius I listen to just a handful of stations, and I really have no use for the talk, comedy, or sports coverage. Maybe there could be packages made based on content...I wonder if this would create any pricing changes.

qbrozen

I think that's a fantastic idea.

I just wonder if they could justify certain stations if too few people subscribe to them, though.

fintail

I have a feeling pricing would probably equal out and you'd get less channels for the same money, but they would simply be the channels you want.

I usually listen to about 5 stations - 2 for 90% of that time. Some of them I have yet to touch.

dwynne

They would be not inclined to offer that unless forced (FCC) to do so. Why? Just like the cable and sat companies the money is in the package. Making you take a bunch of stuff you do not want to get one thing you do want. They justify it by xxx channels for only $yyy per month, but if they offered a la carte you would pay less and they would make less money. At one time Dish or DTV (or both?) offered an a la carte plan, you could pick a few of the basic channels for a low price. I would think that was not something they hoped anyone would pick.

Comcast, for example, refuses to put the NFL Network in the basic tier - you have to pay for an expensive sports pack to get it. Why? Because they now carry exclusive live NFL games you can't get anywhere else - so they wanted to leverage that to make everyone take a high priced pack to get one channel. NFL is trying to get congress or the FCC to force Comcast to offer it to everyone cheap or included in basic.

DTV way overpaid for NFL Sunday Ticket and has to charge customers a ton of money to get it each year. If they had a way to package or make more folks take it, they would. The trouble is, as they raise the price more folks drop it which means they have to raise the price more. If they made it a cheap add-on (say $50 a year, or something) then they might make MORE money since subs would go way up. There was talk of getting a season pass for ONE team at a reduced rate or buying just ONE week at a time. Again, not in their best interest to do that since 99% of the folks buying the NFL Sunday Ticket probably do so for a single team.

So "in theory" Sirius could lower the price of basic services and charge extra for those that want Howard, NASCAR, NFL, etc. It would save a lot of folks money, but I would think Sirius would make less - so it would not happen.

Dennis

robr2

Comcast, for example, refuses to put the NFL Network in the basic tier - you have to pay for an expensive sports pack to get it. Why? Because they now carry exclusive live NFL games you can't get anywhere else - so they wanted to leverage that to make everyone take a high priced pack to get one channel. NFL is trying to get congress or the FCC to force Comcast to offer it to everyone cheap or included in basic.

Actually the real issue here is the cost of the NFL Network. The NFL wants $3.50 per subscriber for the NFL network. If every cable company were to put it on the basic tier, the NFL would reap BILLIONS and the cable companies would have to raise everyone's rates. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to pay extra for a channel that broadcasts a few exclusive games and pretty much useless programming the rest of the time.

BTW - that $3.50 per subscriber is more than what ESPN (#1 rated cable station) gets for all four ESPN channels from the cable companies. Right now the NFL Network programming isn't worth that type of subscirber fee.

carnaught

So "in theory" Sirius could lower the price of basic services and charge extra for those that want Howard, NASCAR, NFL, etc. It would save a lot of folks money, but I would think Sirius would make less - so it would not happen.


Since they're paying Howard so much for his misc. rambling, they should charge more if you care to receive him.

mstem

I am with you Fintail... I have been an XM subscriber for years and at times even feel guilty for not listening to more channels. I too have my favorite half a dozen, inluding a couple of "Decades" channels and that's pretty much where I live! Also listen to a couple of news stations, not a big sports fan and couldn't care less about people like Howard Stern and Oprah. I suspect many others feel the same way, they have their favorite stations and are willing to pay to avoid the commercials and insanity of FM radio today.

nippononly

I am going to echo you 100% here, even though I am a Sirius subscriber. A few music channels, three channels of news, that's all I ever listen to. I couldn't care less about the Howard Stern, any of the sports or talk channels, etc. But it is crucial for me that it be commercial-free. For that reason alone (OK, and the fact they have BBC News) I will continue my subscription.

I will also chime in that it's likely that if they went to the small packages/a la carte formula, we would just have the same fees with less channels available.

fintail

That about sums it up. I think it's a great service and it is far superior to normal FM radio (locally there are only a couple stations I can tolerate), but it sure has a lot of junk tagging along. I wonder what the expense vs revenue generated is for Stern.

fintail

I think realistically, we have it about as good as it will get. If we were offered alacarte choices, say for $2-3 per month...we'd hit the normal rate pretty quickly.

With Sirius one can also listen online, which can be a decent distraction.

mstem

Agreed! Just for the record, XM has the online thing too, and I find myself using it more and more. Nice feature that they both offer...

fintail

When I first heard of satellite radio, I thought it was lame to pay for radio. But then I had a rental car with it, and I was hooked almost instantly. I very rarely listen to local radio anymore. That's probably why I choise Sirius too - the rental had it, and I really liked a few of the stations.

dwynne

Sat radio (either XM or Sirius) is like Tivo, once most folks experience it they want it . Having both means never listening to or watch a commercial again, so having to listen to or watch commercials is a real pain now.

Merge or don't merge, just keep my commercial free tunes coming .

Dennis

tpe

Merge or don't merge, just keep my commercial free tunes coming

I've now been an XM subscriber for almost 5 years. I agree that it's great. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that both of these companies have been losing 100's of millions of dollars. They aren't anywhere close to making a profit or breaking even. Maybe Sirius overpaid Howard Stern. It doesn't matter, they'd still be losing money. Their current business model isn't working. So if satellite radio is to survive what are their options? Either raise subscription rates or introduce commercials. The growth in new subscribers has slowed dramatically so I don't see any other options.

I personally believe that satellite radio will eventually abandon it's commercial free policy. It will also become much cheaper, maybe free. It will replace the current over the air broadcast radio industry. It's simply a better way to deliver a radio signal.

nippononly

"It's simply a better way to deliver a radio signal."

Even with rain fade, tree fade, tall building fade, need I go on?

Certainly if they put commercials on they will run into trouble - then they will just be competing with regular radio, and there's plenty on the air as it is. But maybe I am in the minority here - maybe for most of the existing subscribers, commercials or no commercials is no big deal. It is most certainly a deal breaker for me.

fintail

There'd have to be a limit to the commercials. I could deal with maybe a couple minutes per hour (and not consecutive so I could switch stations :P ), but not like the 15-20 or more minutes per hour normal radio seems to offer.

I have to wonder where the money goes as these ventures are not yet in the black.

michaellno

I had an opportunity recently to compare the two services.

My wife's 2008 VUE comes with XM, so we listen to it a lot here in Colorado. We've found a few stations that we like, so the idea of 'a la carte' pricing is appealing. About the only time we have a problem with the signal fading is when we are directly north of a building or in a canyon. Really, however, not too many times does the signal drop.

A couple of weeks ago, the wife and I went to North Carolina (she on business, me to keep her company and play a little golf). We rented a Chrysler 300 that had Sirius in it. Again, we were able to zero in on the two or three stations that we liked - similar to XM in content.

However, I did notice that the signal dropped more often for no apparent reason, and that the DJ's talked over the beginning of a song more frequently than on XM.

Will be interesting to see what the merger brings with regards to the business or pricing model.

robr2

I have to wonder where the money goes as these ventures are not yet in the black.

Last time I checked, launching satellites into space, setting up studios and ground infrastructure and paying talent, technicians, support staff and venture capitalists isn't free.

fintail

Do these ventures really have their own satellites? Were some investors or execs promised some guarantee of a 20% ROI and have been cashing in at the expense of total viability?

Then again I guess Amazon ran in the red for an eon, so maybe it just takes time to adjust the model.

robr2

Do these ventures really have their own satellites?

Yes they do. Sirius has 4 dedicated satellites (Radiostat 1-4). Radiostat 1-3 are in orbit and 2 of them are over the US at any time. Radiostat 4 is in storage as a backup.

XM has four dedicated satellites all in orbit over the US:

XM-1 Rock
XM-2 Roll
XM-3 Rhythm
XM-4 Blues.

Were some investors or execs promised some guarantee of a 20% ROI and have been cashing in at the expense of total viability?

Venture capitalists are presented with thousands of business opportunites every year and are asked to invest millions or billions on many unproven technologies. In exchange, they are usually given preferential treatment in the returns and great input into how the company is run. The typical plan is that when the company goes public, the VC gets their reward. Since both XM and Sirius are public, we can assume the VC's are out of the picture for the most part. The VC's must've been able to stomach the losses at first because they have no issue with saying it's time to close up shop and stop throwing money away.

The problem with the satellite radio industry today is simple - not enough customers willing to pay for programming as evidenced by many posts here. Everybody wants it as cheaply as possible even if that means the providers lose money.

dwynne

The problem with the satellite radio industry today is simple - not enough customers willing to pay for programming as evidenced by many posts here. Everybody wants it as cheaply as possible even if that means the providers lose money.

If the sat radio companies would not sign huge contracts to have exclusive rights to Stern, NFL, NASCAR, NCAA, MLB, etc then we COULD have affordable sat radio service.

They seem to think that their ticket to riches is to have an "exclusive to their service" and overpaid to get it, then can't make money at the current tuner and service prices because the payout for these specialty programs (that 99% of the listeners do not want) is just too high.

If they could rewind the clock and just put up tunes and such for reasonable fees than they could probably make money and sell the service at a reasonable fee. If they jointly bid on things like NASCAR and NFL rather than bidding against each other for exclusive rights then those channels could be offered for either a reasonable add on fee or even included with the basic service.

I used the NFL Sunday Ticket example before, DirecTV wanted to have it exclusive with no other sat or cable outlets to get it, so they way overpaid. They have to keep raising the fees for this every year and are likely losing money on it each year. The higher prices drive off more customers so they lose even more money and have to raise the price for it again. At least in this example it is an a la carte item, but in truth any money lost having this exclusive programming is just past along to all the subscribers one way or another.

Dennis

fintail

I didn't know they had their own exclusive satellites, yeah that can't be cheap. And yeah, I understand how venture capitalists operate. I just always have to wonder about how efficiently a business is being ran. It does seem some money has been wasted. I wonder how many people subscribed just for Stern or for the sports. In a setup such as this, everyone will kind of subsidize everyone else, but I know the music stations don't cost tens of millions apiece to operate.

I have no problem paying what I am paying for the service, but in doing I can question some decisions.

tpe

Certainly if they put commercials on they will run into trouble - then they will just be competing with regular radio, and there's plenty on the air as it is

Do you really think that over the air broadcast radio is as good as satellite? Forget the commercials, I'm talking about content, selection and signal quality? So if you had the choice between current over the air radio and free satellite radio with an equivalent amount of commercials, which would you choose? Now some people might say neither, they'll just listen to their own MP3s. But I've got to believe that if satellite radio was free, albeit with commercials, and every vehicle had both a traditional radio receiver and a satellite receiver then far more people would be listening to satellite radio. The advertising rates would have to be significantly higher on satellite since they are reaching a national market. That being the case there probably would end up being fewer commercials on satellite radio.

I personally believe this was the National Association of Broadcasters biggest fear, which is why they have lobbied so hard against this merger.

robr2

...but I know the music stations don't cost tens of millions apiece to operate.

They most likely don't. But in addition to talent, overhead, et al there are also the licensing fees that have to be paid to the various licensing firms so the artists get paid. A single radio station in a major market will pay over six figures. I have no idea how Sirius and XM license their content but it must be expensive.

nippononly

"So if you had the choice between current over the air radio and free satellite radio with an equivalent amount of commercials, which would you choose?"

I would listen to both in this scenario, and it seems like kind of a pointless question. Sat radio will never be free. And if it did have commercials, I would probably be listening to my CDs a lot more than I do now. Also, NPR doesn't license out its two biggest draws: Morning Edition and All Things Considered, its two daily news programs. For those, XM and Sirius are worthless, and I STILL have to listen to my local NPR station. So even WITH Sirius, I listen to over the air radio plenty of the time.

As for "content, selection and signal quality", I am not sure what the difference between content and selection is in this context, but I do appreciate the wide selection. As for signal quality, I live in a major metropolitan area. My over the air signal is certainly better and a lot more consistent than the sat signal is. There isn't a month that goes by that I don't think at least once of cancelling completely because of signal fade from weather or especially from overhanging trees.

But I'm glad someone posted the number of satellites each company has. I see now I backed the wrong horse: XM has more satellites in the air. No wonder Sirius has so much more signal fade. I really hope that if the merger goes through they will begin to share all the satellites among all the subscribers. Sirius folks could stand an improvement in their reception.

stever

XM NavTraffic available on more than 40 vehicles for '09 (Straightline)

robr2

I see now I backed the wrong horse: XM has more satellites in the air.

But keep this in mind - XM1 and XM2 - aka Rock and Roll both have issues and aren't expected to last as long as designed. XM3 and XM4 - aka Rhythm and Blues - were launched early so they could share the work load with Rock and Roll. Rock and Roll are both down and in orbit as spares. XM uses 2 satellites in a parallel geostationary orbit so they are always positioned for optimal coverage in the US.

Sirius uses 3 satellites in a traditional orbit where the satellites travel in a figure 8 with 2 over North America.

IIRC, the issue with signal fade is the lack of repeaters on the ground.

fintail

I've never had a fade issue in my area...but I get the tree blockage all the time, as I live in an area where trees covering roadways are common. I can be annoying, but is very short term.

On the other hand, normal radio reception where I live is fine, but the content is nothnig special.

dwynne

The XM sats are in geosynchronous orbit over the equator - the "Clarke belt" - with all the other sats like DirecTV, Dish, C/Ku, etc. The farther north you go the lower the look angle is to "see" the sats so the more potential things can get in your way. XM has lots of ground repeaters to help in cities, but there are still lots of ground repeater dead spots where it is sat or nothing.

The Sirius system uses 3 sats in "high apogee" elliptical orbits and are timed so 2 are always visible to North America at any time. The fact that these appear most times higher in the sky means Sirius should work better - for sure where the there are obstructions and the farther you go to the north. They have a lot fewer ground repeaters than XM because (I guess) they feel they don't need them.

I am an XM early adopter and most places I travel I have had little problems, but it does drop out in some places. On the motorcycles it seems to be worse (no good ground plane for the antenna?) but it could just be that I spend most of my time riding well off the main roads .

So XM has more ground stations but the farther north you live or drive the lower the angle. In the middle of the country this is less than 45 degrees, by the time you get to Canada it might be close to just 30 degrees over the horizon.

If I had to pick one service just based on the sats I might think Sirius would be the better choice but a lot depends on where you live. If you live in a big city with lots of tall buildings the XM ground repeaters should cover better then either sat based system.

Dennis

stever

FCC chief recommends OK of satellite radio deal (Yahoo)

The three-year price freeze for customers is nice I guess, but three years will pass faster than the negotiations for the merger.

ddbrown1953

I have a 2004 audi a4 1.8t cabr.
My wife spilled a coke all down the radio portion of the dash.
Has anyone had any luck in cleaning the equipment up and having it work again?
If not, I would like to replace the radio with a xm capable brand and would like suggestions as to which radio would be best.
TIA
Dale B.

nippononly

I like the a la carte idea and the $6.99 base price for future service, but they say that new radios will be required if you want to access any programming in the future from the company you DIDN'T have before, or if you want to pay a la carte.

I am just hoping (reading between the lines with trepidation) this will not mean that ALL subscribers have to buy a new radio once the merger is complete. :-(

dwynne

All the OEM installed tuners will not work with the a la carte service and if they don't keep both sets of sats up as they are then the OEM tuners will not work for any service. The same is true for add in tuners, but they are much easier and cheaper to replace.

I use plug and play tuners mostly and if they don't make a new tuner that fits the old car and home kits then not only would I have to replace some tuners I would have to replace a bunch of kits.

Dennis

nippononly

Well, I use only a plug-n-play, but I am right on the edge of frustration with this service already, thanks to poor signal issues. The point being I am not sure I am ready to invest another $99, or $199, or whatever, in a new receiver when the one I have already works flawlessly and would go on doing so if they didn't monkey with the other end of the transmission.

texases

Anyone use HD FM? Is it an alternative to sat?