Don't be a cheap *******. You get 120 channels and the music selection
is gargantuan.


Paul Jensen wrote:
[I'd sign up]
if there were a smaller monthly fee.

I find it truly amazing that people on the newsgroups are in such
poverty
that they can't afford 35 cents a day!!

Maybe after paying $120 - $300 a year for internet service, $240 -
$720 a
year for cable, $240 - $600 a year for cellular, etc., maybe $127.75
a year
for a radio service that is primarily not unique is just one bill too
much
for many people.

On 13 Jan 2005 19:27:25 GMT, wrote:

Don't be a cheap *******. You get 120 channels and the music selection
is gargantuan.
Paul Jensen wrote:
[I'd sign up]
if there were a smaller monthly fee.

I find it truly amazing that people on the newsgroups are in such poverty
that they can't afford 35 cents a day!!

Maybe after paying $120 - $300 a year for internet service, $240 -$720 a
year for cable, $240 - $600 a year for cellular, etc., maybe $127.75 a year
for a radio service that is primarily not unique is just one bill too much
for many people.

Maybe it's the fact that since the chief complaint against over-the-air
radio is too much corporate constriction of what's played, actually
shelling out money for a group of stations all under the control of one
company just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not true? You'll have to show me, without me having to risk hundreds of
dollars to find out.





_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jan 2005 19:27:25 GMT, wrote:

Maybe it's the fact that since the chief complaint against over-the-air
radio is too much corporate constriction of what's played, actually
shelling out money for a group of stations all under the control of one
company just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not true? You'll have to show me, without me having to risk hundreds of
dollars to find out.

I know Sirius has, and I think XM does, too, the opportunity to sample either service
for 3 days or so for free. From the discussions I've seen in the alt.satellite.radio
newsgroup, both services seem to work adequately to quite well technically, so your
choice then is, or should be, based on programming.

Consult each service's website (www.sirius.com and www.xmradio.com) for details.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jan 2005 19:27:25 GMT, wrote:

Maybe it's the fact that since the chief complaint against over-the-air
radio is too much corporate constriction of what's played, actually
shelling out money for a group of stations all under the control of one
company just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not true? You'll have to show me, without me having to risk hundreds of
dollars to find out.

I know Sirius has, and I think XM does, too, the opportunity to sample
either service
for 3 days or so for free. From the discussions I've seen in the
alt.satellite.radio
newsgroup, both services seem to work adequately to quite well
technically, so your
choice then is, or should be, based on programming.

Consult each service's website (www.sirius.com and www.xmradio.com) for
details.
--
If you are a customer of the Dish Network (satellite TV), you have access to
the Sirius music channels. You can then decide whether you want Sirius.

I have Sirius and have had a one month subscription to XM. I really
like that I can find music on sat radio that I could never find on
terrestial radio. For example, I like Blues, Bluegrass and Folk
music, which is not available on the radio where I live. This was
enough to make me want to subscribe.

Bruce

Not true? You'll have to show me, without me having to risk hundreds of
dollars to find out.

The point is not how many or how few companies control satellite radio. The
point is that it's run under a different business model, and therefore can
afford to air formats that OTA radio has had to abandon because they can't, for
whatever reason, sell them. Better still, the music channels don't hew to
someone's idea of hooks played in auditorium tests. Playlists are far deeper
than OTA radio could ever hope to be. If your complaint against OTA music
formats is "how come we never hear this, this or that anymore?", satellite
radio likely does let you hear it.

Best example: If you're over 54, OTA radio presumes you listen to conservative
talk. That is literally the only format sold to advertisers targeting the 55+
demo. I don't know the channel lineup for Sirius, but XM has probably a dozen
and a half channels that easily appeal to the 55+ folks, just on the music
side. When was the last time you heard an OTA radio station playing 1940's
music, movie soundtracks, show tunes, American standards, world music or
African music, outside of a few eclectic shows below 92 MHz on the FM dial?

And if diversity really bothers you, look at the non-music side. Fox News,
CNN, Headline News, ABC News & Talk, CNBC, Bloomberg, MSNBC, BBC World Service,
C-SPAN Radio, XM Public Radio, America Right, America Left. News from every
conceivable place on the political spectrum.

It's no wonder that companies invested in OTA radio are worried, and well they
should be. Satellite radio may never reach the critical mass necessary to make
a serious dent in the audience OTA radio has (and if they do, it will probably
take over a decade at current rates of growth), but the fact that it has them
worried at all shows that the public can now see and hear what they're missing.

In all honesty, OTA radio ought to have bigger worries from a whole other
source. I saw a recent article in Advertising Age, saying that broadcasters
should be much more worried about personal music players. So far, XM has 2.3
million subscribers and Sirius about 1.2 million. However, sales of iPods so
far total about 10 million...and I haven't heard so much as a peep from
broadcasters about iPods. Some car makers and after-market car stereo vendors
are even making plug-in adapters for iPods.

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...

So far, XM has 2.3 million subscribers and Sirius about 1.2
million.

XM claimed 3.1 million at the end of 2004.
IIRC, you are correct with the Sirius end-2004 number.

XM claimed 3.1 million at the end of 2004.

Sudden attack of dyslexia. You are, of course, correct.

I have them both and like both services. Music on Sirius sounds better
and they don't have all the promos like XM has on their music channels.
XM is a bit easier to get indoors. Sirius has better sports, but XM has
baseball. Nascar going to Sirius in 2007. Sirius boomboxes sound much
better. In all cases, sat radio in the car is SO MUCH BETTER than
regular old AM and FM. Also, now that the price is the same (XM just
raised their price to match Sirius, you can't go wrong with either service.

Bob Haberkost wrote:
"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
...

On 13 Jan 2005 19:27:25 GMT, wrote:


Maybe it's the fact that since the chief complaint against over-the-air
radio is too much corporate constriction of what's played, actually
shelling out money for a group of stations all under the control of one
company just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not true? You'll have to show me, without me having to risk hundreds of
dollars to find out.


I know Sirius has, and I think XM does, too, the opportunity to sample either service
for 3 days or so for free. From the discussions I've seen in the alt.satellite.radio
newsgroup, both services seem to work adequately to quite well technically, so your
choice then is, or should be, based on programming.

Consult each service's website (www.sirius.com and www.xmradio.com) for details.