Satellite Radio's Grinchy Holiday (1 Viewer)

Very interesting article posted Here

Seems like satellite radio is finding itself in an end-of-year sales rut.

As an owner of XM radio and one who often keeps tabs on Sirius
through friends, I am not as satisfied with satellite radio as I
once was.

While nobody can argue that satellite radio offers a wide range
of program choices that will satisfy any purchaser, the overall
sound quality of satellite radio has gotten so bad that I tend to
favor listening to CDs during my daily commute.

The only reason I listen to XM these days is for Opie and Anthony
and to keep on top of new music that I ultimately download and
burn off the Internet because the 320kbps quality is so much better
than what XM broadcasts at (which is approx. 192kbps or less).

Even the sonics of FM radio sounds equal to or better than satellite
radio. The only thing stopping me from sticking with FM is of course,
the commercials.

Unfortunately, the complaints I have are overshadowed by the
majority of subscribers who seem to care less about the quality
of audio that emanates from their tiny speakers.

Of course, this is an opinion that has been discussed in a prior
thread posted within this forum area. I just tend to agree with
the referenced article that many people still have not found a
reason to migrate over to a subscription based radio service for
obvious reasons.

In a way, I'm hoping on an eventual merger. Though I dread the
fact that Sirius would control music programming, the upside would
be the combined bandwidth that would enable CD-quality music on
every channel. Satellite radio could finally promote itself as a service
offering the best digital content and with sound quality that rivals HD-Radio.

With each other? Probably won't happen. I think they probably both need the competition, just like DirectTV and Dish need each other.

Now, mergers could happen with other companies. Personally, I think Sirius could be a big target for that eventually, with all the high priced talent and deals they have.

Personally, I'd be fine if XM continues to be a niche. At least then they could stick by their programming guns.

I have been very satisfied with my XM subscription. Of the vast number of channels, I seem to gravitate to just a few - the three classical (though I don't like the fact that Pops pumps out Christmas music during the holidays), Cinemagic, and XM Comedy. I have some rock preset as well as Bluegrass and that is about it. This service has been a Godsend for all my long 6+ hour drives. The classical and Cinemagic are the primary reasons I went to XM in the first place, especially since the DC area is grotesquely under served in the classical market.

Michael,

No doubt, satellite radio is a godsend for commuters, interstate
travelers and people like yourself who live in cities that don't offer
all types of music.


Getting back to the XM/SIRIUS merger discussion....


A really terrific follow-up to the above mentioned article can
be found

I'd be fine with a merger as long as they still kept XM and Sirius seperate as far as programming goes. I agree with most of the comments regarding audio quality, but I'm still a content listener. The quality is not as good as I'd like it to be, but the content more than makes up for it, IMHO. I would be all for anything that raises the quality, as long as the content does not suffer.

The thing that I like about radio, whether it's satellite or terrestrial, is that it's not my programing. Sure, I can put a kick ass system in my car or home and play my stuff on it, but I've always felt that becomes a rut. Great sound, same content. And, since it's all mine, there are no surprises. One of the great things about radio is the surprise factor. When you hear that new song that knocks you out, or you hear the song you haven't heard in 10 years that you forgot about. Not to mention the chance to hear music you originally dismissed when it came out that now, years later, you end up really liking. You know what I mean. We've all had those experiences.

I'll always be a radio listener, no matter what medium it's carried over, as long as the content is there for me.

I don't think wi-fi is going to be the great satellite killer. There aren't enough major cities blanketed by it to have a customer base for radios yet, and even in cities that do have total wi-fi coverage, the coverage basically sucks. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Not this year, not next year, or even the year after that. There are major cities that can't even get full cell coverage; how do they expect to get full wi-fi? Maybe not the best comparison, but I think it's still a valid point.

And again, we're talking about major cities. Or at least "large enough" cities. What about everything in between? If you live in the same city you work, it might work out. Satellite doesn't (in theory) have dead zones like that, where as wi-fi will. For long commuters (or people who travel for a living) the dead zones are always going to be there.

Don't get me wrong, the above is more of a stream of conciousness on wi-fi than a criticism of it. I think it will be viable one day, but not one day soon.

My sentiments exactly.