Justice Dept. Approves XM/Sirius Merger 232
Ripit writes "Just yesterday the Justice Department approved the merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Radio, a Sirius takeover to the tune of $5 billion. The transaction was approved without conditions, despite opposition from consumer groups and an intense lobbying campaign by the land-based radio industry. 'In explaining the decision, Justice officials said the options beyond satellite radio -- digital recordings, high-definition radio, Web radio -- mean that XM and Sirius could merge without diminishing competition. "There are other alternatives out there," Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett said in a conference call. "We just simply found that the evidence didn't indicate that it would harm consumers."'"
since Satellite radio has so few consumers (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And so the only real way to decrease price is to increase the customer base, I'm surprised it took so long to approve this merger. In so many ways, it is similar to the government sanctioned cable monopolies - building two competing 'satellite' networks would driv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For those of you complaining about why pay for a service you get for free, I'd ask the same thing about free air TV vs. cable. In general, I don't like broadcast TV, and I don't like free-air radio. Cable has a large number of options, and so does satellite. I like being able to jump from a channel of strictly 80s music to a channel with traffic and weather for the area I'm in to music my 5 year old will want to listen to and then switch over to some elec
Stupid (Score:2)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually you'll probably see receivers that can receive both services, but that will depend a lot on how the companies decide to merge their two technologies. That likely won't happen for years though, and during all that time they have to keep supporting their existing customers.
Worthless? (Score:2)
It's not like XM or Sirius would destroy their infrastructure (satellites) simply to sell more receivers. Besides which, if they made every radio receiver obsolete, how would they sell you their service?
What they'll have to do, at least for the medium term, is support a unified service that is transmitted in both infrastructures. In the longer term, since the frequencies are governed by the FCC, you'll probably see dual-receiver tuners, sort of like the AM/FM tuner in your car.
Do
Took them long enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course a number of these other huge mergers didn't require FCC approval as well. The XM/Sirius merger now as to wait for FCC approval, so it's going to end up being a lot longer before this is all said and done. It absolutely disgusts me that XM/Sirius is taking so much longer than the consolidation of the oil industry, telephone industry, etc. This will end up being the longest approval process in history. What justifies taking so long when mergers involving bigger economic concerns like oil took hardly any time in comparison?
Re:Took them long enough... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that a year is a long time for the Bush so-called administration to make a ruling that contradicts a law. Usually that's done before morning tea.
Re: (Score:2)
But anyways w
I don't beleive that's accurate (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM/Sirius_merger [wikipedia.org]
Re:Took them long enough... (Score:4, Funny)
Identical to HDDVD vs Blu-Ray (Score:2)
The adoption rate of XM and Sirius have been slowed because of the close competition. Many consumers simply could not justify the purchase of one over the other. I'm in this group, I would love to have a subscription to a satellite radio service but I liked certain aspects of each. This is very close to the high definition wars slowing adoption rate.
The difference is the same companies have stake in both current DVDs and their high defi
I support this (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, if xSiriusM decides to raise prices or add back advertising or what have you, people will desert them in droves. Terrestrial radio is only worse because they have made a very strong effort to make satellite radio better. If they move towards a ClearChannel-esque service model, they'll be out of business in a year. Particularly ads. God help them if they put in ads.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I listen to Coffee House (acoustic stuff), Chill (ambient/techno), Hits 1 and the Pulse.
I listen to these *all* the *time*. Because there's no ads. It's great.
I know the talk stuff has ads. I couldn't care less. But touch my ears with a Toyota sale-abration on the music stations, and I instantly unsubscribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Don't forget, one of Sirius/XM's big selling points is commercial-free music. That doesn't mean commercial-free dick jokes on Howa
IMO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
people don't know what a monopoly is (Score:2, Interesting)
That shows you that most people don't know what a monopoly is. As long as you don't depend on satellite radio, your opinion doesn't matter. Listen to your free radio. That given, it shows that the 2 companies merging will not effect anyone who needs to have their radio.
Now what about Chevron-Texaco? People depend
Long overdue (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My speculation is that, in the immediate term, they will close down the Sirius studios and just pipe XM content to both platforms
And this, in my opinion, will be the death of the company as a whole. XM and Sirius are incompatible on more than just the technical side. They are also incompatible on the content side. I was an XM subscriber for 4 years before I bought a new car with Sirius built in. The difference was night and day. To me, XM felt like there was a giant facility in a cave somewhere that had several hundred CD changers on shuffle. Sirius on the other hand felt more like radio should be, DJs that actually knew about
Profitability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Sirius' audio offerings wont suck now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, I used to listen mainly to their christian rock station. They then drop it and about a dozen other stations. They encouraged me to listen to Spirit. That'd be like dropping the headbanger's station and telling a metalhead to listen to the Elvis All Day station. Okay, so both may technically fall under rock. But they're worlds apart. Siriusly, you might as well just try towing a 20ft trailer with a Prius.
Stupid, they totally don't get their own markets.
***
Maybe this merger will improve the quality of their programming.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this merger will improve the quality of their programming.
I'm praying that they don't improve it. Right now I get ClearChannel-free programming in the formats I like. If they fix that by replacing that content with whatever Clear Channel deems popular in a category, I'll cancel that same day.
Fortunately Sirius seems fairly responsive to customers. I wrote them a complaint letter when I heard them censor an F-bomb out of a song. It's not that I necessarily want a stream of profanity out of my radio, but that I'm an adult and paying extra to hear the whole s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was listening to "Alt Nation" when I heard the censored song.
I don't mind having "clean" channels for all the reasons you mentioned (and others, such as having something the kids can listen to in the car that's more tolerable than Cheetah Girls). I just want Sirius to label and/or market those channels as such.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's time you got out a little more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My work in radio has mostly involved logos and branding for radio stations. I sometimes want to stop the pe
Thank you, Justice Department! (Score:3, Funny)
This is a good thing for consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
XM and Sirius are premium services and thus will probably could not have survived on their own.
XM radio helped keep people in New Orleans informed long after all the terrestrial radio stations were shut down. Yet Clear Channel tried to get legislation passed [house.gov] to prevent satellite radio from providing local weather and news information.
Merger is not complete. (Score:5, Informative)
explain it to me? (Score:2)
About five years ago, satellite radio was unheard of, or nearly so. For a time, there was only one company offering service. No one at that time would complain of this being anti-competitive or a monopoly, that there was only one choice in the market.
But now, after two companies decide to merge, suddenly threatens to become anticompetitive and needs government approval. Why is the first case ok, but the second ca
Why I think this is a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Radio needs Satellite radio! For the last decade, I have been striving to find quality programming on radio that wasn't lacking the polished professionalism of most college radio stations and at the same time wasn't the over-researched, payola driven, target market homogenization of your typical Clear Channel station. That was found in Satellite radio for me.
The key differences with satellite radio and AM/FM these days is this. AM/FM is losing listeners every day. Advertising is down 15% in the last few years and listeners are turning off the AM/FM radio for other mediums. Instead of taking a chance with formats like in years past, stations owned by large corporations and disappointed shareholders instead become more conservative and try to be less distinguishable than before to attract the largest number of listeners. What happens is a large number of stations in a given market end up with eerily familiar formats, with little to no variance in station programming.
Satellite radio has taken a different approach. With such a comparatively smaller audience nationwide when compared to there traditional counterparts, Satellite radio will do anything to attract listeners, and that has been through offering dozens of niche stations with specific programming. It's fantastic sitting in my car and listening to Deep House music in one station, NCAA March Madness another, and obscure underground classic from another. It's what FM used to be 13-40 years ago in my opinion.
In short, FM is playing conservative to keep what listeners they have and are losing daily, while Satellite is taking chances to draw whatever listeners they can get.
Why is this merger good? Both stations are fiscally hurting, and a quality medium like Satellite radio needs to be strengthened against not only AM/FM/HD radio, but iPods/Podcasting, and streaming radio online.
Price increase unlikely (Score:2)
compatibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
Neither company has (Score:5, Interesting)
Also I don't know this for sure, but since Sirius would be the buyer here wouldn't they make sure their combined network is compatible with both existing Sirius and XM hardware? Changing that would only piss their customers off, so those of you who already have Sirius or XM shouldn't need to buy new stuff.
Can't wait (Score:2)
We do have alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)
In the meantime, AM and FM radio has gone downhill so fast it's unlistenable now. What with all the generic programming, massive amounts of commercials, and the fact that you constantly have to tune to different stations if you are driving any distance. I've always wondered why they hadn't come up with a way to expand the radius for their signals, whether via repeaters, satellite stations, or some other method.
To be fair, satellite programming has gone downhill as well. Both companies are losing money, have huge expenses, and duplicate much of their content. My hope, as many others are, is that the unified company will be able to focus on better programming and become profitable. I'm getting close to the point that I will not renew my subscription unless things improve at Sirius, and I will not consider going back to XM.
The argument that they now have a monopoly on the market is not the same as other industries. I'm already making up cd's or using my ipod with tons of podcasts, music, and ebooks for traveling and if the programming for satellite radio doesn't improve, or the cost increases, they aren't getting a renewal from me and we as consumers have many alternatives.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...and has no coverage in the US and Canada, which is where Sirius and XM operate.
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue has little to do with what competition remains within satellite radio, but whether there remains competition. Satellite radio competes with broadcast radio and a number of other formats, so the merger does not remove competition, but makes the combined company more efficient and less likely to lose money.
Both XM and Sirius are bleeding money right now and that can't last forever. If the the industry allowed them both to go under that would counterproductive to helping competition.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have replied to the wrong post. OP offered Worldspace as an alternative to Sirius and/or XM, and I simply pointed out they are not, as they are not available in the markets in which Sirius and XM are, and vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
They are both priced beyond what joe sixpack will subscribe to. They went for the profitable low hanging fruit and tried to charge cable TV rates, but not enough people live in their car, so they got long haul truckers that got tired of going out of range of a good station. City dwellers don't have any incentive to part with a gr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which we will hear in the car how exactly?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government's role in approving mergers is not designed to ensure that you personally will have multiple choices of product to meet your individual needs; it's to promote competition in the market as a whole. Internet streaming radio is a valid facto
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try something different; based on your assumption that sat. radio is competing with iPods, terristrial radio and CDs, should we now allow all FM stations to merge into one? After all, they are competing with sat. radio, iPods, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all got to do with percentage market share. If you look at broadcast and satellite market as a whole, if both XM and Sirius had say 40% or ever 20% of that market each, then no they wouldn't be permitted to merge. Letting XM and Sirius merge at this point does not red
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why stop at just broadcast and satellite radio? Why not talk about the "background entertainment and current events" market as a whole, of which XM and Sirius are an even smaller pa
Re: (Score:2)
Only within certain arbitrary limits. There are various attributes -- e.g. higher sound quality, access to the same channels from anywhere -- of satellite radio which are not found in terrestrial broadcasts. You may not consider these attributes important, but others may not find terrestrial radio to be even a suitable substitute, much less
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, you don't have satellite radio if you think the sound quality is higher.
Access to the same channels from anywhere is only useful if you travel a great deal, which most of the po
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have satellite radio. I lose signal, not static but complete signal loss, in heavy tree coverage, in parking garages, in areas with tall buildings, going up and down curving mountain roads, etc. And, the sound quality
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your cellphone, of course. Any 3G phone has way more than the necessary bandwidth to support those applications. Latency isn't a factor in this sort of application.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, go start one and make money off it.... if you can. How big is the market for bluegrass or metal in your area? Small market means small earnings through advertising.
Here in Tampa, we have WMNF 88.5, which plays all kinds of crap. But, they don't make any money and follow the public radio model. Begging drives to get money to pay for the programs. Oh, and did I mention they alienate half their potential audience by being somewhere
Internet streaming audio? (Score:2)
AM/FM or sat..
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
XM is not the biggest competitor for Sirius (nor vice versa). CD/MP3 players and AM/FM broadcasts are - and HD radio is marketing aggressively to try to maintain that market segment. The driver for lowering satellite radio prices and improving content is persuading people that it's worthwhile to adopt satellite radio and pay the subscription fees. A market war between two satellite providers would only drive prices up and deteriorate service quality.
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Informative)
But, increasingly, the traditional radio stations are all owned by Clear Channel and the satellite stations are the only ones offering content like that. If you're looking for continuous, commercial free, specialized radio channels with national coverage
If the choice is down to the Clear-Channel payola and commercial dominated crap, or the now merged Sirius/XM broadcast on satellite, that hardly represents consumer choice. This is like a choice between the "old radio model" and the "new subscription model", with the option of playing your own CDs and MP3s thrown in.
Then again, I've long stopped expecting US regulators to actually do anything which preserves choice for consumers -- they just do what the corporations want.
And how will creating a new monopoly in the market not eventually drive up prices and deteriorate service quality -- I simply don't believe it's evey played out differntly. They're not in competition with the traditional radio stations, so among people looking for an alternative, there would now be exactly one game in town. Once there is one game in town (*cough* Comcast *cough*) they can abuse you all they like.
Satellite was the only alternative to the traditional model. I must say, I just don't get how this is ultimately better for consumers.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there doesn't seem to be THAT much of a market for that service, or we wouldn't be talking about this merger. They did it because having to compete with each other sucked away both companies ability to make money.
That said, as an XM subscriber, I'm afraid of the merger. Sirius stations basically follow the FM model, but with a slightly narrowe
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking for continuous, commercial free, specialized radio channels with national coverage .... is there really any competition left after this merger?
No, in that niche there would be no competition left. But, like I said, that doesn't imply that they don't still have to deal with competition. I like satellite radio, but I don't have it in my car. When I drive cross-country, I typically scan the radio for local stations. Sometimes that sucks (at one point west of Amarillo, there are three choices of where you'd like to tune in to Rush Limbaugh). But, I still don't think that the difference in service between AM/FM and satellite justifies the cost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite simply - I don't subscribe to your socialist leanings. You would have the government regulate something at the drop of a hat ("but I have to change channels, or I can't list
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily same signal, but same content since ClearChannel and the like have all the "standard stations" in every market now, no? Sure you'll have to retune often, but it's pretty certain if you like say, KISS FM, you'll find the same station the next town over as well, also called (conveniently enough) "KISS FM".
Of course, this brings up
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Informative)
Comparing this with TV is the short-bus way of looking at it. TV you can only get from Cable (usually only one player in town), Satellite, or OTA (which isn't eveywhere either). I don't know of many places that you can't get at least 10 radio statios + internet.
It's a "new" format and it has to compete with other audio broadcast formats out there. Look at the bigger picture.
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Informative)
Having said that, even though I make trips like this at least twice a year, I still don't have satellite radio, because I don't see the need. Even with my cheap factory installed car stereo with no auxiliary jacks, I can burn a few CDs from my MP3 collection to fill the hours when there are no decent radio stations. Maybe if I did that sort of traveling on a monthly basis or something. Regardless, I have a hard time seeing the appeal of paying a monthly fee for radio unless I'm a traveling salesman or something. Radio is not like TV, it's not something that people will generally listen to in their spare time. It's usually something people listen to when there are no other entertainment options, such as when they're driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Try moving your antenna. I have to be driving through rather heavy tree coverage to lose the signal. Bridges very rarely cause a dropout.
If you have Sirius, that might be the problem. XM's satellites are in geosynchronous orbit, so if you're in the continental US, you'll always have full visibility of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say about half the time bridges cause a gap (8-9 seconds after I've passed the bridge. My stereo must buffer.)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate commercials too... But I hate losing signal when I go under a bridge, or when there's a big tree next to the road, or when it's cloudy. I hate it even more when I paid $120/year for that signal...
So I just listen to CDs instead. If you get a changer that plays MP3 CDs it takes a long time to even get through all the songs, much less get tired of them.
You either had a broken radio/antenna or a very poor antenna install/placement. There is only one bridge I've gone under and lost signal (on Highway 80 in Omaha), I've never lost signal when PASSING a tree, nor have I *ever* lost signal when it was "cloudy". Hell, I was stuck on Highway 29 North when a freak blizzard hit causing MoDot to close the South-bound side (I lost count of how many Semi's and cars had crashed/gone into a ditch). It was snowing so much that you could barely see past the front of
Re: (Score:2)
My XM radio was standard equipment on my car (as was the mp3/CD changer). The placement of the antenna is the same on every Acura. I'm not the only person who has the problem, either. Other people who live near me with a variety of cars and equipment (Massachusetts & New Hampshire) have the same complaints.
By "passing" a tree, I mean driving down a road with 50+ foot pine trees one or each side of the road for a bit (which is pretty common around here). It's not really j
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Having said that, even though I make trips like this at least twice a year, I still don't have satellite radio, because I don't see the need. Even with my cheap factory installed car stereo with no auxiliary jacks, I can burn a few CDs from my MP3 collection to fill the hours when there are no decent radio stations. Maybe if I did that sort of traveling on a monthly basis or something. Regardless, I have a hard time seeing the appeal of paying a monthly fee for radio unless I'm a traveling salesman or something.
In our case, that "something" is the following: I live in a city of over 1.5 million people but there is no jazz radio station of any type. This makes the price of satellite radio worth it to my wife. In my case, the fact that I can listen to several rock channels without any annoying commercials makes it worth it to me.
My only complaint is that both satellite services went for quantity in the quantity vs. quality tradeoff and as a result their audio is better than FM but not CD quality. I'm hoping that if
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid of them attempting to do that. There aren't a lot of duplicate channels. There's some duplicates in the talk stations, but those are already rather low bitrate, so you wouldn't gain a lot from dropping them. You could merge the top 40 type stations as well, but that's only a few.
Past that, XM and Sirius have rather different philosophies on programming. Si
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually something people listen to when there are no other entertainment options, such as when they're driving.
That's what the internet stream is for (included as part of the monthly fee). I listen to it all day long in my office. When I have a computer connected to my HT setup, I'll listen it while I have friends over for game night (nearly every Saturday/Monday). I also listen to it while I'm in the shower.
Yes, you may be happy listening to the same MP3's all day, every day, etc, however, I am not. Yes, many of the songs played can (and are) played for months on end, however, new songs are introduced all the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's exactly why XM and Sirius have to merge. The market isn't currently there to support both companies. I AM an XM subscriber (and shareholder) and I'd rather see them merge than go away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try almost anyplace between the Mississippi river and California.
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Informative)
Your choices are:
1. Pay service like XM / Sirius
2. "Free" radio (and all the commercials that come with it)
3. iPods / MP3s / podCasts
They are all in direct competition for people's ears as they commute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "airwaves" are supposed to be public/free, and are licensed by the FCC. Satellite is not under FCC's jurisdiction as it goes beyond the public spectrum. It was purely a lobbyist's game that held this up for so long.
Interesting how Murdoch can take over the WSJ with all the holdings in news media (pr
Re: (Score:2)
It's not outside the government's control. The FCC licenses for the spectrum used by satellite radio was granted on the condition that XM and Sirius never merge. They could have merged easily if one company was willing to give up their spectrum, but that would've made the company wor
Re:The commute? not likely (Score:2)
The manufactures have been force feeding the receivers on the auto manufactures as too few opted to buy a receiver. I don't have any data on the number of subscriptions dropped when the free trial ended. The fact is they are not meeting their subscription goals by a long shot.
The competition is not in the commute, but the long haul truckers. They are overpriced to compete effectively for the 30 minutes to an hour commuters spend listeni
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
XM/Sirius is a pay service. They offer music, news, talk shows, etc.
AM/FM radio is free. They offer music, news, talk shows, etc.
iPods can be used to listen to music, news (podcasts, etc), talk shows, etc. (also for free)
New emerging technologies like wimax may offer alternative ways of streaming music, news, talk shows, etc.
This is basically what the DoJ ultimately decided. There are enough alternatives for content delivery that a merger of these two wouldn't create a monopoly in the economic sense. True they may be the only company offering services by satellite but they certainly couldn't jack up the prices without customers leaving for perfectly viable alternatives like terrestrial radio, iPods, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't count on WiMax:
http://www.commsday.com/node/228 [commsday.com]
Maybe the 700MHz band would be more useful,but I'm not counting on it.
I understand what you mean, but frankly, both XM and Sirius agreed to never merge with another sat radio provider when they got their license. They are trying to back out of that agreement after they've nearly bankrupted themselves spending their money in incredibly unwise way
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Satellite radio's real competition is terrestrial radio (analog and HD) along with MP3 players. That's who they have to compete with, if people don't want to pay for their service they don't have to, there are other places to go.
Re: (Score:2)
That merger would have left people in many rural areas without any other legitimate choice for decent television service. OTA stations are few, and in many places the signal from only one or two stations is usable. Dish and DirecTV were the only competition in that area.
In XM and sirius' case there is legitimate competition just about everywhere. Even if you are in an area where there are very limited broadcast radio stations, you still have the option of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When traveling, i find I listed to the iPod more often than radio.
With a new baby, likely I'll be listening to childrens crap more than my own too.
HD and digital terestrial radio are solid competition to sattelite. With things coming down the pipe from cellphone companies, and their digital networks, don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm... what other Satellite Radio is there? (Score:5, Insightful)
I (and millions of others just like me) listen to satellite radio all the time (I listen to it all day in my office -- listening to it right now via an XM Radio gadget in Vista). I take a 4.5 hour trip to Omaha, NE at *least* once a month, and other shorter (but still hour plus trips) between those. Hell, I even listen to the Sirius stations while I'm at home through my DishNetwork service (MAN I wish they had XM instead of DirecTV -- the Sirius programming *sucks* compared to XM in my opinion) hooked up to my HT setup.
I *hate* commercial radio. I *loath* listening to commercials for seemingly half of an hour. I hate it so much that I barely watch TV live (I record virtually everything). XM has been *awesome* for me. I am not alone.
Just because *YOU* don't subscribe to it, and thusly think it's unneeded, does not make it so. It *is* a needed service. I absolutely *refuse* to listen to normal radio after having had my XM service for several years now.
As it is right now, if the merged company decides to adopt the Sirius broadcast hardware, I'll be very upset. It does not sound as nice as XM's does (Sirius just doesn't provide as much bandwidth to their music channels as XM does and this is *especially* noticeable on their internet stream).
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, XM WX is quite important as well - not just in the air, but also around as well (XM offers WX service in general now - not terribly useful to those who can catch the local broadcast, but may be important in the boonies).
XM doesn't actually provide the da
You're right.... but (Score:2)
Let's take gasoline. The rising prices is bad for the consumer, except that other forms of energy will suddenly become cost effective and we may actually have alternate fuel automobiles that make sense. Cheap gas does inhibit alternative forms of energy and transport.
If we end up with a real alternative, it's worth it in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
FLAME ON!!!!