# at what point will XM become a threat to AM and FM?



## XM DUDE (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm guessing 300,000,000


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

XM and Sirius are already threats to AM and FM. How else do you explain the NAB's efforts to block traffic and weather reports on satellite radio? How do you explain the on air "public service" campaign regarding the strengths of AM and FM vs. satellite radio? Does any of this mean an end to AM and FM? No, but terrestrial broadcasters should wake up and smell the coffee before the plug is pulled on the percolator.


----------



## XM DUDE (Jul 9, 2004)

Pete K. said:


> XM and Sirius are already threats to AM and FM. How else do you explain the NAB's efforts to block traffic and weather reports on satellite radio? How do you explain the on air "public service" campaign regarding the strengths of AM and FM vs. satellite radio? Does any of this mean an end to AM and FM? No, but terrestrial broadcasters should wake up and smell the coffee before the plug is pulled on the percolator.


I was thinking at 300,000,000 that would be a large impact on market share.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2004)

If the large media conglomerates hadn't mucked up the FM spectrume with their cookie cutter formats(all cities sound the same , bland)..ther would be no need for XM..NAB has only itself to blame!!!


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

"If the large media conglomerates hadn't mucked up the FM spectrume with their cookie cutter formats(all cities sound the same , bland)..ther would be no need for XM..NAB has only itself to blame!!!"

Nonsense. 100 stations is always more selection than 5, no matter who controls the 5! Add to that, the large part of Hwy. 93 between Missoula and Kalispell that has essentially no terrestrial radio (a couple very staticy country or AM talk stations) and yeah, you still need satellite!


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

MarkA said:


> "If the large media conglomerates hadn't mucked up the FM spectrume with their cookie cutter formats(all cities sound the same , bland)..ther would be no need for XM..NAB has only itself to blame!!!"
> 
> Nonsense. 100 stations is always more selection than 5, no matter who controls the 5! Add to that, the large part of Hwy. 93 between Missoula and Kalispell that has essentially no terrestrial radio (a couple very staticy country or AM talk stations) and yeah, you still need satellite!


Yep! Out here in the west, sat radio is becoming as essential as a gun rack. 
Lots of geography not served by any radio station whatsoever. With XM I have better choice in the middle of the Great Basin than any radio listener in NYC.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Exactly, I do think it's unfortunate that XM chose to use a GEO orbit for their satellites. I'd probably prefer XM to Sirius (not sure though, but NASCAR radio and the lower price and the nicer equipment are strong incentives - of course I think the music on Sirius is better from what I've heard) but reception's the killer. I got three dropouts in about 20 miles of driving today (in the city). Yesterday I got one in 120 miles a large stretch of which there was a mountain to the NW (where Sirius's main sat is relatively at any one time) or to the south (other parts of the road - I've been told XM's completely blocked on that five miles or so).


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

Lower the monthly fee and a lot of people would probably join, whenever I bring up the subject of satellite radio the first thing from people's mouths is the cost!!


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Only when the receivers for XM and Sirius become as ubiquitous as standard radios will they have any significance. When the receivers come preinstalled in a large number of vehicles (and not as an expensive option or in luxury models), then it will begin to make a difference.


----------



## JerryR (Jun 17, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Only when the receivers for XM and Sirius become as ubiquitous as standard radios will they have any significance. When the receivers come preinstalled in a large number of vehicles (and not as an expensive option or in luxury models), then it will begin to make a difference.


Both of those events are already taking place.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

JerryR said:


> Both of those events are already taking place.


Not hardly. The receivers are still an expensive option in most cases. Surely you cannot claim that XM or Sirius are coming anywhere close to the presense of standard analog radio?

I would wager there are more people like me who don't even listen to radio anymore, standard or satellite. CDs and MP3s are the only thing that plays in my vehicles, I don't have to worry about static or talkative hosts or commercials or signal fade. I listen to exactly what I want to hear, anytime. And I don't have to pay extra for the priviledge.

I just don't see sat radio even getting the coverage that sat television has, much less cable. It will always be a niche player.


----------



## JerryR (Jun 17, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Not hardly. The receivers are still an expensive option in most cases. Surely you cannot claim that XM or Sirius are coming anywhere close to the presense of standard analog radio?


You're right - I make no such claim in my post. However, at least in this part of the country, you can add XM or Sirius to your current vehicle for about $100 plus the monthly fee of course - certainly not out of the reach of the masses. And, on a new, mid priced vehicle, you can add either for a couple hundred bucks more - provided you aren't including the GPS option. Some manufacturers and/or dealers will even throw in a year's subscription.


----------



## XM DUDE (Jul 9, 2004)

$130 for a Roady that can turn any car radio into a sat radio and with aal of the selection, how could you loose?
People pay $50 to $100 a month for cable, but complain about $10 month. :hurah:


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Why pay $10/month for something when I can burn a CD of over 300 MP3 files for less than 50 cents and listen to exactly what I want to hear and didn't have to pay anything extra for the equipment?

Sat radio is a neato thing, but I just don't see it being anything more than a small niche player. Like it or not, "radio" is not television, so comparisons to cable or sat tv aren't equitable.


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

I don't know about you but I only have so much room in the car for CD's. It is also difficult and dangerous to juggle them while driving. I do burn some but there is no way they can take the place of the variety available on XM. To each his own.....


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Why pay $10/month for something when I can burn a CD of over 300 MP3 files for less than 50 cents and listen to exactly what I want to hear and didn't have to pay anything extra for the equipment?
> 
> Sat radio is a neato thing, but I just don't see it being anything more than a small niche player. Like it or not, "radio" is not television, so comparisons to cable or sat tv aren't equitable.


Happy, sat radio is much more than just music. My favorite channels are the old time radio and radio theatre channels. Plus the jazz channels I listen to have cuts I have never heard on a CD. My MP3 library has just about every top 40 tune from 1955 through 1970. It is on the same computer as my XM PCR. more likely than not I will play XM ratther than play my mp3's.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Why pay $10/month for something when I can burn a CD of over 300 MP3 files for less than 50 cents and listen to exactly what I want to hear and didn't have to pay anything extra for the equipment?


I used to think the same thing. Back when XM and Sirius first came out my initial reaction was, who the hell in there right mind would pay $10 to listen to the radio. If I don't like what's on I can always download and burn. Time went by and slowing my musical tastes went from alt rock to hardcore metal, FM radio can't play a lot of the stuff I wanted to get into, Muzak on Dish was barley a step above FM, with it's lack of hard rock and edited music. Finally I started looking into XM and was almost ready to get it. Last summer I went to Hartford, CT and met up with Scott G., when I got into his truck he powered up his SkyFi, put it on 42, I forget the which song, but it was by Pissing Razors, at that exact moment, my mind was made up. That was on a Thursday evening, that following Tuesday after I got out of work I went straight to the nearest mall, went to Sears and bought my XM setup. I've been exposed to many many bands via XMLM that I would have never have found before. To me, $10 is well worth it and I only listen to a handful of channels, there's maybe 5 channels on XM I listen to on a regular basis, plus PB Radio and soon O&A.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Don't get me wrong, I think the sat radio idea is a good one. I just don't see it being more than a niche, though, that's all. Especially should digital terrestrial radio become reality. Personally, I haven't "played the radio", meaning any FM or AM station, in YEARS. I got tired of the constant motormouth DJs, stupid juvenile antics, and blathering idiots of talk-radio. Commercial-free sat radio does have an appeal, but I can burn a lot of MP3 cd's for $10/month. When each CD has 250 to 300 songs, you don't need that many to have good variety, and a 6-disk in-dash changer was standard equipment on both my cars.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

HGL: Not everyone has the time to sort through, much less download or rip thousands of MP3s. Personally, I have both - an MP3/CD player in the car and an XM setup that I move between my car and the house.

...and how much are you compressing the music that you're getting 300 on a disc! (Mine usually top out at 100-125)


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

djlong said:


> HGL: Not everyone has the time to sort through, much less download or rip thousands of MP3s. Personally, I have both - an MP3/CD player in the car and an XM setup that I move between my car and the house.


My CD players have the ability to read the ID3 tag and sort by genre if I choose.


> ...and how much are you compressing the music that you're getting 300 on a disc! (Mine usually top out at 100-125)


For the car, usually 64Kbps is good enough, as it is not a demanding listening environment. Also, I use the MP3Pro algorithm which provides slightly better quality at lower bitrates, but is playable on standard MP3 players.

My MP3 collection on my computer is generally in the 256kbps to 320kbps VBR or ABR format.


----------



## JerryR (Jun 17, 2004)

djlong said:


> HGL: Not everyone has the time to sort through, much less download or rip thousands of MP3s.


Exactly.


----------



## CrankyYankee (Feb 19, 2003)

rcbridge said:


> Lower the monthly fee and a lot of people would probably join, whenever I bring up the subject of satellite radio the first thing from people's mouths is the cost!!


The cost?!

Think about what you spend ten dollars a month on right now...Smokes, lottery tickets, magazines you don't read, movies that are awful, HBO that
you don't watch enough to justify the cost...

For $2.50 a week, I think it's well worth the price.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

Quote[[ The cost?! Think about what you spend ten dollars a month on right now...Smokes, lottery tickets, magazines you don't read, movies that are awful, HBO that you don't watch enough to justify the cost...
For $2.50 a week, I think it's well worth the price. }}

I fully agree with you but just ask some of your friends and co-workers and I guarantee the majority will say I won't pay for radio!!


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

My experience has been getting the reaction of "Why would I pay for it?"

Then they hear it.

After that it's more like "Only $10 for that?"


----------



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

rcbridge said:


> Lower the monthly fee and a lot of people would probably join, whenever I bring up the subject of satellite radio the first thing from people's mouths is the cost!!


Ditto!
Adults driving to work, ... with sufficient discretionary funds? - sure, no problem. But there's not enough numbers in that to pose a real threat to AM/FM. Lower the price, both monthly and hardware, and maybe then it can topple FM. The "working class" market, where $10 is better spent on beer and the kids, who aren't going to pop for money when something is free, are not going to be won over by sat. radio until the price drops. Its not THAT much better and not that good a value right now.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Are you kidding? Not that much better? Not much better than three modern country stations that are mostly ads and maybe a top hits station that's all ads, and a mostly talk Christian station?

That would be the station selection in most areas around here on FM...


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

MarkA said:


> Are you kidding? Not that much better? Not much better than three modern country stations that are mostly ads and maybe a top hits station that's all ads, and a mostly talk Christian station?
> 
> That would be the station selection in most areas around here on FM...


I found out my Mom's Buick has an XM radio built in. It also has the OnStar system built in, but she doesn't subscribe to either of them, and won't. I asked if she knew what the XM was, she did, but said she could listen to regular radio for free or play a CD. Even though she could well afford the subscription price, there is just no way you'd ever convince her that she should pay for "radio".


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

HGL - It's like any other technology. Pay for TV? Pay $500 for a microwave oven? Why a cell phone when I have a landline? They have to be convinced to try - and even then they might not care.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

djlong said:


> HGL - It's like any other technology. Pay for TV? Pay $500 for a microwave oven? Why a cell phone when I have a landline? They have to be convinced to try - and even then they might not care.


My mom finally got a cellphone about 9 months ago, one of those pay-as-you-go versions that doesn't require a contract. My parents do subscribe to Dishnetwork for their TV, though they don't get the "local" channels since they get those "for free" via antenna.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Those who havent heard it don't miss it. Those who have can't live without it. In 10 years FM will be as popular as AM (ie. not much).

I had to drive 810 miles each way from Brielle, NJ to Hilton Head, SC for a wedding last weekend. The SkyFi was worth its weight in Gold. Traffic in DC, Baltimore, and Philly, ..... Music without commercials... Even the Emergency channel to keep up to date on Jeanne. And the signal cut out only twice. Once going through the Ft. McHenry tunnel in Baltimore, and once in Hilton Head when I was in the Sea Pines community where a lot of trees created a leafy tunnel to obscure the signal. Meanwhile I watched as my cellphone read "NO SERVICE" for miles on end in NC and SC on Rt. 95.

You'll take Satellite Radio from my cold dead fingers before I give it up. (My only regret... I wish I had Sirius on Sunday for the NFL games...... Oh well, first car I get that has Sirius OR XM in the factory radio will get me to add the other service's plug and play unit so I can get both)


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Its not THAT much better and not that good a value right now.


Oh yes it is, to those of us who have nothing but Entercom and Viacom corporate programmed garbage as our sources of musical entertainment (or lack thereof). Commercial breaks that are upwards of 10 minutes long, airhead DJs that degrade the station more then it already is, repeats, lack of display information. RDS is out there, but many FM stations refuse to take advantage of the technology. I have no choice as to what they play at work, but yesterday in a span of 6 ½, I heard that stupid "******* Women/Hell Yeah" song NINE times between two Entercom owned stations. True, radio is free on the FM and AM bands, but in that case you get what you pay for.

Satellite radio isn't for everyone, but I get my moneys worth out of it, Like I said adove, what I listen to I can't get on FM. Imagine if I ever get Sirius, $28 a month spent on radio.


----------



## dcairns (Oct 4, 2004)

> at what point will XM become a threat to AM and FM?


What is an AM and FM?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Some ancient technology, I think it was in the same time period as this strange thing called a VCR. 

Welcome to DBSTalk :hi:


----------

