# Echostar buys XM debt. Potential control move?



## MRinDenver (Feb 3, 2003)

So, now that Charlie has purchased XM, I wonder how that will change DirecTV's music offering?


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

Are you jumping the gun in declaring DISH the owner of XM?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

That seems a bit strong of a statement. All that I can find is that Echostar has purchased some of the debt, leading to speculation they _might_ be making a play for control.

Without government approvals, I don't think they can actually take control should they acquire enough of the debt later on.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

This is purely speculation as they have not purchased it yet, but if Dish does purchase them I would think that the contracts in place would play out.

There is no saying that it could not be run as a separate company anyways and Directv would just continue buying access as they do now.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

Since the OP is in CO, as am I, I presume he saw the same story I did, in Friday's _Rocky Mountain News_.

The subhead was "Douglas County giant buys satellite radio firm's debt in possible takeover strategy." The operative word here is *possible*. Charlie ain't got nuttin' so far but a note for <$300 million. OTOH, that debt matures on the 17th of this month. If SiriusXM can't pay, then we'll see...


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Well, even if Charlie manages to obtain control, he has to purchase liabilities, assets AND existing contractual relationships. If he tries to cut Directv out of their existing contract without abiding by any pre-negotiated termination clauses, he'll be in breach of contract. Further more, under the laws of some states, even if he's willing to pay the damages for breach of contract, he might be subject to "exemplary damages" provisions - sort of like punitive damages for commercial and consumer protection - especially since he owns Directv's most-direct competitor.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Title changed


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

boba said:


> Are you jumping the gun in declaring DISH the owner of XM?


No kidding!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

It's very possible that Echostar has no interest in the Sirius XM service and is just looking to gain control of their assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. The satellite slots, bandwidth, terrestrial repeaters, etc. have value...and that may be the target now the actual service.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Ken S said:


> It's very possible that Echostar has no interest in the Sirius XM service and is just looking to gain control of their assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. The satellite slots, bandwidth, terrestrial repeaters, etc. have value...and that may be the target now the actual service.


They only have value for direct-to-user satellite audio use, per their FCC license. Even if they buy Sirius XM to gain those slots, etc., they still have to use those assets in the manner for which they are licensed.


----------



## MRinDenver (Feb 3, 2003)

Well, I say if you own a man's debt, you can call his tune. Or tunes, as the case may be.

Tell me why he wants the debt, if not to exercise eventual control?

This discussion is why I started this thread.

Nothing in Charlie's background indicates he is a passive owner of anything.

That isn't a judgement, just an observation.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> They only have value for direct-to-user satellite audio use, per their FCC license. Even if they buy Sirius XM to gain those slots, etc., they still have to use those assets in the manner for which they are licensed.


No they dont. The government can change the licenses if requested. I think hes after more HD bandwidth to catch up with Directv and cable.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

MRinDenver said:


> So, now that Charlie has purchased XM, I wonder how that will change DirecTV's music offering?


 I wouldn't expect it to.. Charlie is more than willing to make money even if it means the fees are being paid by a competitor.

Frankly I don't think it much different than Comcast providing sports channels to Dish and Direct. It's only a subscription.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Well, even if Charlie manages to obtain control, he has to purchase liabilities, assets AND existing contractual relationships. If he tries to cut Directv out of their existing contract without abiding by any pre-negotiated termination clauses, he'll be in breach of contract.


No he does not.

If there is a default on the debt, he can force XM into default. After that he can take control of the ASSETS as he pleases. He assumes no liability for any other XM liabilities.

This assumes the debt he has bought is senior debt and not subordinated to other debt.

This is the same as the mortgage company taking back a house. In doing so they do not assume liability for a car payment.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

Ken S said:


> It's very possible that Echostar has no interest in the Sirius XM service and is just looking to gain control of their assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. The satellite slots, bandwidth, terrestrial repeaters, etc. have value...and that may be the target now the actual service.


From the same article I quoted earlier:

"The_ Wall Street Journal _reported Sirius and EchoStar have "differently designed satellite systems that could be difficult to combine," but that Sirius has some facilities on the ground that could be beneficial to EchoStar."

I'm just waiting for the throwdown between Ergen and Malone...


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I am by no means a rocket scientist (which I'm sure will be evident when you read the rest of the post ), but my initial thought when reading posts about the speculation of Dish doing this as a lead-in to gaining their satellites, two things crossed my mind.

1) Are the satellites that Sirius/XM have in orbit even usable for satellite television broadcast, and is the current in/on home dish/receiver system capable of using signals from those sats? and

2) Seems to me when I was researching Sirius versus XM years ago when I first bought in, Sirius used what was referred to as a 'figure 8' kind of thing where the sats weren't really geo-stationary like the TV service sats are. XM's was geo-stationary, Sirius was not. I wound up going with XM for that reason, as well as the fact that Sirius had Stern and XM had MLB.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

Did I read that DirecTV just turned off 3 XM Sirus channels? Is this related some how?


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

scottchez said:


> Did I read that DirecTV just turned off 3 XM Sirus channels? Is this related some how?


Nope. The provider (NOT XM) ceased providing them to XM, so they are no longer available to D*.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

It would mean nothing to me, I can't remember the last time I listened to one of the channels. It probably would mean nothing to the majority of the DTV subscribers if they were cut off. Maybe an issue only at the holidays?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

These channels were internet only. They haven't been on XM for many months, even pre-merger


----------



## egnlsn (May 3, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> 2) Seems to me when I was researching Sirius versus XM years ago when I first bought in, Sirius used what was referred to as a 'figure 8' kind of thing where the sats weren't really geo-stationary like the TV service sats are.


When I used to work in CATV headends, I would have to call few different phone numbers (one for each company that owned a satellite we were using) to find out when the bird was in the "center of the box" so I could properly peak the dishes, as they all traveled in figure 8s.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

boba said:


> Are you jumping the gun in declaring DISH the owner of XM?


Geee.....

Maybe we should start a "remove all XM channels in a hurry at DirecTV" petition ... :lol:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I am by no means a rocket scientist (which I'm sure will be evident when you read the rest of the post ), but my initial thought when reading posts about the speculation of Dish doing this as a lead-in to gaining their satellites, two things crossed my mind.
> 
> 1) Are the satellites that Sirius/XM have in orbit even usable for satellite television broadcast, and is the current in/on home dish/receiver system capable of using signals from those sats?


Sirius already offers a tv broadcast system. It's meant for mobile screens in cars. I don't know the quality. They carried a few kids channels.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> 2) Seems to me when I was researching Sirius versus XM years ago when I first bought in, Sirius used what was referred to as a 'figure 8' kind of thing where the sats weren't really geo-stationary like the TV service sats are. XM's was geo-stationary, Sirius was not. I wound up going with XM for that reason,


I actually get better reception in the car with Sirius. My dad has XM in his vehicle and I get dropouts in places in his that I never get in mine.

FYI, XM 3 and XM Rock are at 85 degrees, XM 4 is at 115. XM Roll should be there as well, but Lyngsat is not listing it.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> No he does not.
> 
> If there is a default on the debt, he can force XM into default. After that he can take control of the ASSETS as he pleases. He assumes no liability for any other XM liabilities.
> 
> ...


It's not the same at all. If Charlie forces Sirius XM into default, a Chapter 11 does not guarantee which creditor(s) will get paid, nor what amounts they will be repaid. Furthermore, even if the debt is senior debt and secured by specific assets, seizing those is still subordinate to existing contractual relationships.

If, for instance, the asset securing the debt is the satellite bandwidth slots or even the hardware on-orbit itself, and Charlie, as secured creditor grabs control of those assets, he cannot use them in violation of existing FCC licenses. And if he seizes them and thus forces the gutted Sirius XM into breach of existing contractual relationships, he opens himself up to claims of tortious interference with contract claims by millions of Sirius XM subs and customers (and 50 states' attorneys general). That's a regulatory and legal morass from which he is unlikely to extricate himself cleanly.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

techntrek said:


> No they dont. The government can change the licenses if requested. I think hes after more HD bandwidth to catch up with Directv and cable.


Uh, yes they do. A "request" to the FCC is not going to be granted automatically. Furthermore, there are strong anti-competitive rationales to negate any such request.

And even more to the point, XM sats are in GSO but the bandwidth available is relatively small. Sirius sats use a very different orbital scheme and are completely incompatible with existing fixed dish type receiving equipment.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Uh, yes they do. A "request" to the FCC is not going to be granted automatically. Furthermore, there are strong anti-competitive rationales to negate any such request.
> 
> And even more to the point, XM sats are in GSO but the bandwidth available is relatively small. Sirius sats use a very different orbital scheme and are completely incompatible with existing fixed dish type receiving equipment.


Not automatic, but with pressure and the right arguments they've done worse in the past.

The XM sats are what would be useful. They are general "workhorse" sats which could be reconfigured to be useful for Dish. Obviously new S-band LNBs (and maybe a new dish depending on the slot location) would be needed. But Directv has done the same over the years as their situation has changed. As they prepared for the latest 2 sats they started installing the 5 LNB dishes, and in some markets they use dual dishes.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Just what Dish needs, more satellites just up there somewhere and requiring yet another technology


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Whatever they heck they're doing I hope it works. This economy does _not_ need more people out of work and one less satellite company. Competition is good and I hope Dish succeeds in bettering their technology.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

techntrek said:


> Not automatic, but with pressure and the right arguments they've done worse in the past.
> 
> The XM sats are what would be useful. They are general "workhorse" sats which could be reconfigured to be useful for Dish. Obviously new S-band LNBs (and maybe a new dish depending on the slot location) would be needed. But Directv has done the same over the years as their situation has changed. As they prepared for the latest 2 sats they started installing the 5 LNB dishes, and in some markets they use dual dishes.


You're reaching.

XM 3 and 4 occcupy the 115W and 85W slots, which are licensed only for satellite audio, not television service. And even so, the bandwidth is ridiculously small: 12.5 mhz of the S-band. Per FCC filings, the XM has four carriers, each of less than 3.3 Mbits/sec.

Even assuming the FCC would allow a change in use of the orbital slots allocated, that's very little bandwidth.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

We won't know what Charlie is thinking until Charlie announces it. It could be that he knows the first people to do something always eat the cost. If he can buy a music company for much less then what it would cost to start one then it's just an add on. Having a radio option would give him good marketing position and it could be a "bundle".

It could also be that he doesn't care about the music part and wants the technology to do something completely different like DoD using the land based repeaters that are all over.

It could also just be a way to get some tax write off and make his balance sheet look better depending on what the Q4 and Q1 results are.


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

Maybe Charlie believes if he can wrestle control from the current owners through bankruptcy proceedings that he can find a viable business plan that would allow Sat Radio to become profitable. I imagine that if this is the case, he believes he can rework content contracts and reach a new agreement with the FCC on the use of XM/Sirius' licenses. After all if he gains control through bankruptcy proceedings he certainly has an argument that the current model/license agreements are not viable. 

On a personal note, if he does pull the above off, I hope he re-directs the music channels back towards the XM model (Deeper playlists, truer to the genre, little on air personalities) vice Mel Karmazin's terrestrial radio model (top 100 playlists, annoying on air "personalities", broad interpretation of genres).


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Charlie has me as an Sirius XM sub. concerned because I don't know what he has in mind for Sirius XM. And most of the stories I have read clearly paint Charlie as the "bad guy" who is going to at least try to take out Sirius XM


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

That business would have been profitable if they didn't hire Stern and pay huge amounts for sports.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> That business would have been profitable if they didn't hire Stern and pay huge amounts for sports.


Hiring Stern wasn't the issue. He actually brought subscribers with him and Sirius was dead in the water without that hire.

Throwing gobs of money at Martha Stewart, Jamie Foxx, Oprah and others that didn't bring subscribers was the problem.


----------



## clyde sauls (Nov 16, 2007)

Even if Charlie were to buy the xmsirius company that doesnt mean he wouldnt allow directv to use the service. Comcast owns g4 and some other channels and dish and directv both have the channels.Just a matter of negotiations when Directv contracts is up for the service. Isnt directv largest owner a programmer also which Charlie has to negotiate to get their channels. So it would help him with those channels. Just part of the business.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

clyde sauls said:


> Even if Charlie were to buy the xmsirius company that doesnt mean he wouldnt allow directv to use the service. Comcast owns g4 and some other channels and dish and directv both have the channels.Just a matter of negotiations when Directv contracts is up for the service. Isnt directv largest owner a programmer also which Charlie has to negotiate to get their channels. So it would help him with those channels. Just part of the business.


I doubt that DirecTV would want to continue using the channels.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

raott said:


> Hiring Stern wasn't the issue. He actually brought subscribers with him and Sirius was dead in the water without that hire.


I'm no Stern fan, but there's no way I can dispute that statement. He made Sirius a brand name.


----------



## skyviewmark1 (Sep 28, 2006)

A bit of a technicality here I know, But I keep seeing references to Dish Network here, and Dish Network is not buying the Debt. Echostar is buying the debt up.. Dish Network and Echostar are two separate companies since the split a while back.. But both still have the same guy in control..


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

skyviewmark1 said:


> A bit of a technicality here I know, But I keep seeing references to Dish Network here, and Dish Network is not buying the Debt. Echostar is buying the debt up.. Dish Network and Echostar are two separate companies since the split a while back.. But both still have the same guy in control..


i guess the thread title needs to be changed....again....this title get more changes than a babys diaper.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> You're reaching.
> 
> XM 3 and 4 occcupy the 115W and 85W slots, which are licensed only for satellite audio, not television service. And even so, the bandwidth is ridiculously small: 12.5 mhz of the S-band. Per FCC filings, the XM has four carriers, each of less than 3.3 Mbits/sec.
> 
> Even assuming the FCC would allow a change in use of the orbital slots allocated, that's very little bandwidth.


That was the same info I found on wikipedia. Even if they could repurpose the bandwidth for tv it wouldn't amount to anything substantial. I have to imagine there are much better ways for them to pick up more bandwidth than to go for this given all the issues and extremely limited amount of bandwidth. Sirius's sats are not in GSO and use a figure 8 pattern with multiple sats that keeps coverage that way.

As has also been mentioned it's Echostar that has bought the debt which is the side of things that produces the receivers etc and not Dish networks that runs the sat tv service. I can't imagine that Echostar has any interest in the sats up there or the FCC licenses.

All in all I'm not sure what the purpose behind this is but I'm sure he has some reasoning behind it and thinks he can make money somehow or they wouldn't be doing it.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

skyviewmark1 said:


> Dish Network and Echostar are two separate companies since the split a while back.. But both still have the same guy in control..


Unfortunately....


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

XM1 and XM2 have a problem that will shorten there life so thats why XM put up XM3 and XM4.

I don't know about the license for XM, but Sirius broadcasts TV channels for there Backseat TV thing.


----------



## walterj806 (Dec 15, 2006)

It was definitely a sad day for music listeners when DIRECTV gave up Music Choice for XM.


----------



## walterj806 (Dec 15, 2006)

Reference #44 Post I very seldom post but it would help when I do, that I would get the spelling Correct.

Walter Jones


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Walter, you should be able to edit your posts by the way. But I was more than happy to help.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

raott said:


> Hiring Stern wasn't the issue. He actually brought subscribers with him and Sirius was dead in the water without that hire.
> 
> Throwing gobs of money at Martha Stewart, Jamie Foxx, Oprah and others that didn't bring subscribers was the problem.


Ok I admit that the statement was too generic. What I should have said is it would have been profitable if they hadn't hired Stern for what they did and set the bench mark that high for other people they wanted to sign.


----------



## YKW06 (Feb 2, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Ok I admit that the statement was too generic. What I should have said is it would have been profitable if they hadn't hired Stern for what they did and set the bench mark that high for other people they wanted to sign.


I used to think that way too, until I ran some numbers.

Figuring that the average sub has two radios active (many have just one, but enough have many more that it tends to round up), each account is worth about $250/yr in extra revenues to SXM.

That means programming costing as much as $10M/yr justifies itself by keeping only 40K customers from canceling.

Let's say Martha Stewart's presence is keeping only 20K subs active. She's still a bargain until she approaches a salary of $5M/yr. And I'd be willing to make a substantial wager that letting Martha Stewart go would lose SXM a lot more than just 20K subs. (There is, of course, a presumption that all other programming on her channel is SXM-owned and would simply slot in elsewhere if Martha left. If Martha is paying the talent and owns the programming, then she'd have to be the drawing card for a proportionally larger number of subs.)

Now let's take Howard Stern. I think it's far to say SXM would lose upward of 1M subs if Stern, et al, decided to call it a day. That translates to about $250M/yr in lost revenues (and more still if you presume the number of lost subs to be substantially higher). Given that the cost of all talent and rights fees for H100 and H101 is likely somewhere way south of $200M/yr (let alone a quarter-bill), Stern is more than earning his keep.

On the other hand, I'm not sure Tha FoxxHole is a channel over which even 4K subs would walk if it dried up and blew away. Contemporary "black" comedy would slide right back to XM Comedy/Raw Dog (both enhancing the older channel _and_ helping to erode the SXM-created artificial racial comedy divide), while the occasional rap or smooth jam would still be found on one of the twelve-to-fifteen other stations that play that sorta thing. If his deal is for as little as $1M/yr, it was an awful deal.

Don't get me wrong: there are still grave issues with the SXM business model. Subsidized radios, subsidized dealer installs, retention giveaways and the like are crushing the company. But most of the "names" are enhancing both the brand and the bottom line.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Maybe Charlie wants to be in a business where he doesn't have to hear the name Tivo.


----------



## vansmack (Aug 14, 2006)

Sirius XM Prepares Bankruptcy Filing

By ZACHERY KOUWE
Published: February 10, 2009

Sirius XM Satellite Radio has been working with advisers to prepare for a possible bankruptcy filing in a move that could put pressure on the satellite company EchoStar, which owns a substantial amount of the company's debt.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well if Charlie is just trying to help "save" Sirius XM for its subs. and shareholders I say good for him. I always try to give credit where credit is due. But after being a Directv customer for over 13 years now it is very hard for me to trust Charlie


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

vansmack said:


> Sirius XM Prepares Bankruptcy Filing
> 
> By ZACHERY KOUWE
> Published: February 10, 2009
> ...


OH!NO! Charlie the cards just came up Aces and Eights again!.:eek2:


----------



## MRinDenver (Feb 3, 2003)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/charlie-ergen-echostar-se_n_164664.html


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

MRinDenver said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/charlie-ergen-echostar-se_n_164664.html


<deep sigh>:nono2:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

From a financial sense having Echostar take over could make a lot of sense. There would be significant cost saving in combining CS, Admin, Finance depts with Dish (if that's what they do).

Sirius XM has close to 20 million subs...at $13/month+ that's a nice chunk of recurring revenue.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<mod note>Please let us not get into discussion of the sources, especially the discussion of the politics of a site.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

YKW06 said:


> I used to think that way too, until I ran some numbers.
> 
> Figuring that the average sub has two radios active (many have just one, but enough have many more that it tends to round up), each account is worth about $250/yr in extra revenues to SXM.
> 
> ...


Excellent points. It kills me to see people post things like"Hiring Stern was a bad thing" and that it alone killed satellite radio. By hiring Howard Sirius pulled itself up off the mat and fought back. Thats all you heard was Stern this and Stern that along with Sirius. People may not like him,but he was a huge part of making Sirius a success and he has earned every penny they payed him. As I stated in another thread..... You tell me who else could have brought in 3 million subscribers in that short of time? Not Nascar, NFL,Oprah,Martha. I think Sirius was dumb for paying Chris Russo that much.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

> People may not like him,but he was a huge part of making Sirius a success and he has earned every penny they payed him.


I don't think Sirius (or now, Sirius XM) has been a "success" by anyone's definition. The stock has been in the tank, they have debt coming due they can't service, and are in danger of either a hostile takeover or Chapter 11 reorganization.

That's not the kind of "success" I want for my business.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Stern brought in a specific number of subscribers. He didn't fix their business model, he just got them a lot of press. I would not call his tenure a success unless it improved profitability and subscriber numbers.

In the end, Stern seems to have helped to polarize people and make them watch Sirius more closely. Unfortunately, the majority of that time Sirius has been hemorrhaging money.

I want them to succeed because I like satellite radio. I think it represents a good value *for me*. But I think paying him that much was a stunt that never payed the expected dividends. Even worse, with the short-term influx of capital from the exposure, Sirius seemed to do nothing to run their business more efficiently.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> I don't think Sirius (or now, Sirius XM) has been a "success" by anyone's definition. The stock has been in the tank, they have debt coming due they can't service, and are in danger of either a hostile takeover or Chapter 11 reorganization.
> 
> That's not the kind of "success" I want for my business.


It was better then the alternative...... and that was Sirius going under 3 years ago and XM buying their assets. I call that a success for Sirius. They still had a lot of debt after,but they had a fighting chance. I do call that success.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

gregjones said:


> I want them to succeed because I like satellite radio. I think it represents a good value *for me*. But I think paying him that much was a stunt that never payed the expected dividends. Even worse, with the short-term influx of capital from the exposure, Sirius seemed to do nothing to run their business more efficiently.


I agree and I want them to succeed too,but its not Howards fault they ran bussiness model into the ground. He did what they wanted him to do and that was bring in subscribers quick and get as much press as possible. He did that. He had people buying Sirius radios and subscriptions before he even got there. Then when he arrived even more followed. I remember a time when they didn't have enough radios for Stern fans. People had to wait for them. You can't blame Stern for both companies mistakes. Thats all I'm saying.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

I would never pay for all that chatter between songs since they merged,and Howard Stern probably cost them as many customers as they added because of his show.

Maybe Charlie needs to be in charge of this one !:grin:


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

Matt9876 said:


> Howard Stern probably cost them as many customers as they added because of his show.
> 
> Maybe Charlie needs to be in charge of this one !:grin:


How is that? When he announced they litteraly had 600,000 subscribers. So I guess when cable and satellite tv decided to put porn on ppv they lost millions of subscribers? Thats pretty much what you saying. You can block channels on Sirius just like cable and satellite.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

MRinDenver said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/charlie-ergen-echostar-se_n_164664.html


Another similar story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6257620.html


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

ehilbert1 said:


> It was better then the alternative...... and that was Sirius going under 3 years ago and XM buying their assets. I call that a success for Sirius. They still had a lot of debt after,but they had a fighting chance. I do call that success.


Instead, they managed to convince XM to merge, the FCC to allow it, and then ruined XM's deep playlists, chatter-free experience, and many individual stations like X Country, Bluesville and my Fred/Lucy/Ethel alternative faves.

"Sirius XM" is taking the whole subscriber base down the drain with them.

Thanks, Howard.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Matt9876 said:


> ... and Howard Stern probably cost them as many customers as they added because of his show.





ehilbert1 said:


> How is that? When he announced they litteraly had 600,000 subscribers.


I don't know about the "as many customers" part, but I, for one, made the decision to go with XM at that time BECAUSE of what Sirius was doing with Stern.

Plus, I wanted MLB radio so I could listen to the Twins games while out on the lake!


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Instead, they managed to convince XM to merge, the FCC to allow it, and then ruined XM's deep playlists, chatter-free experience, and many individual stations like X Country, Bluesville and my Fred/Lucy/Ethel alternative faves.
> 
> "Sirius XM" is taking the whole subscriber base down the drain with them.
> 
> Thanks, Howard.


If XM would have signed Howard(and they were very close to it) then Sirius would have went under and XM would have bought their assets. Then you would have thanked Howard. By the way I used to have XM for the longest time and hoped Howard would choose XM. Not everyone thought they had deep playlists and that Fred,Lucy,Ethal, Mike,David and Bill were great channels. You can roll your eyes all you want Sirius at that time did what is best for itself. XM did not have to merge they choose too. Don't blame Howard for that blame XM. I feel your pain on losing channels you loved,but it wasn't Howards fault. Yea lets blame Sirius for not wanting to go under years ago. Now that deserves a


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I don't know about the "as many customers" part, but I, for one, made the decision to go with XM at that time BECAUSE of what Sirius was doing with Stern.


Then why do you have D*? They have porn channels out the wazzoo. That makes no sense to me? You didn't want Sirius because of Howard,but your cool with all the porn on ppv?


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

Read this article and make sure you read the last two paragraphs.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/11/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?cnn=yes


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

ehilbert1 said:


> Read this article and make sure you read the last two paragraphs.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/11/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?cnn=yes


I did and don't agree with it one bit. $100M a year is absurd for a anyone, let alone a radio show personality.

And I do blame XM's board and shareholders for agreeing to the merger. I pay my bill quarterly and have one coming due in about a month. Unlike a lot of gripers I'm willing to vote with my wallet. At this point, I'm about 75% certain I'm going to cancel and go back to my iPod, Pandora and CDs (I have a six-disc changer in the car that can read MP3s).


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

It was the foot-dragging of the FCC that sealed the fate more than anything. They waited an extremely long time waiting for approval. While they waited, investment stopped and costs mounted. When they did merge, the cuts had to be drastic and were very poorly received.

The delay made sure that any good news out of the merger was overshadowed by the loss of content. Add in price increases necessitated for cash flow and you get the outcome we see now.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> I did and don't agree with it one bit. $100M a year is absurd for a anyone, let alone a radio show personality.


Keep in mind that that is not his paycheck. That is the amount his production company is paid to produce the show and they have to pay salaries, utilities, engineers etc.

He is still making out OK, just not $100M OK.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> I did and don't agree with it one bit. $100M a year is absurd for a anyone, let alone a radio show personality.
> 
> And I do blame XM's board and shareholders for agreeing to the merger. I pay my bill quarterly and have one coming due in about a month. Unlike a lot of gripers I'm willing to vote with my wallet. At this point, I'm about 75% certain I'm going to cancel and go back to my iPod, Pandora and CDs (I have a six-disc changer in the car that can read MP3s).


As soon as the 1st million people (That was a Sirius number not mine) joined Sirius because of Stern they were in the black on the deal. Realistically he brought at least 3 million subs to Sirius and probably more just through brand recognition.

For the people that didn't take Sirius because of Stern...what are the feelings on Opie and Anthony and the other guys on that channel? They're okay, but Stern isn't?

What killed Sirius XM was the delay on the merger. The delay was a violation of law and was funded (lobbied) by competitors like the NAB. They knew they couldn't find a basis for denying the merger so they did the next best thing delayed it so long that both companies lost momentum and bled money.

Still, at the end of the day they have more subscribers than any of the pay TV services other than Comcast...there's a lot of cash flow there....and someone is going to be able to reorganize the company and fund it through this mess. If Charlie can figure a way to get the company cheap (and I believe that is his goal) he's going to end up with a nice business and great synergistic marketing tool for Dish.

I do believe some of the other deals the two did were not worthwhile and the marketing dollars they were spending was insane.. They spent money on names that didn't bring in subscribers. The only big name signing since then though has been Chris Russo and I would bet he brought in more than enough new subs to cover $3 million a year.

I hope that Sirius XM finds a way to stay on the air as it is a refreshing change to what was going on with terrestrial radio the past decade..between the censorship and ad blocks running over 15 minutes it got old.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

I just hope that somehow Sirius XM can stay afloat. And here is Dumb Dolly with a question. I think (?) if there is a takeover the shareholders get wiped out--not that they haven't been pretty much wiped out already--but what happens to us Subs. of Sirius XM?


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Ok I admit that the statement was too generic. What I should have said is it would have been profitable if they hadn't hired Stern for what they did and set the bench mark that high for other people they wanted to sign.


Stern isn't the problem. He brought in way more than enough subscribers to cover his $100 million per year cost, and that $100 million per year cost is dwarfed by Sirius XM's almost 3 billion dollar debt. If anything, Stern has helped delay the bankruptcy of satellite radio.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I don't know about the "as many customers" part, but I, for one, made the decision to go with XM at that time BECAUSE of what Sirius was doing with Stern.


Choosing a satellite radio service because of what's *not* on it would be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of, and I would venture to say that nobody really did that when choosing between Sirius and XM.



JLucPicard said:


> Plus, I wanted MLB radio so I could listen to the Twins games while out on the lake!


Of course, that's the real reason for your choice, and Stern had nothing to do with it. If Sirius hadn't hired Stern, that wouldn't change the fact that XM was the only one that had the programming that you _did_ want.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> I did and don't agree with it one bit. $100M a year is absurd for a anyone, let alone a radio show personality.


How do you figure? If someone can generate for a company more than what they are paid, it's absurd to suggest that they are not worth their pay just because it's a really large amount.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> Choosing a satellite radio service because of what's *not* on it would be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of, and I would venture to say that nobody really did that when choosing between Sirius and XM.
> 
> Of course, that's the real reason for your choice, and Stern had nothing to do with it. If Sirius hadn't hired Stern, that wouldn't change the fact that XM was the only one that had the programming that you _did_ want.


Here I would have thought insulting members of DBStalk as one of the [moderator note: tom redacted his own statement here...]

I hope you get my point. Don't insult the members for their choices.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Here I would have thought insulting members of DBStalk as one of the [moderator note: tom redacted his own statement here...]
> 
> I hope you get my point. Don't insult the members for their choices.
> 
> ...


Thanks Tom for all your work when things get a little out of hand here :sunsmile: People just think and feel differently and therein lies the problem. What I may think and feel is a great thing, idea, etc. some people may think and feel is awful. So the next thing you know people are posting about my great thing, idea, etc. as being awful insulting me in the process. If we could just remember that we all have our own ideas, Tom would have less work to do  Sorry for going off topic :blush:


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

Just looked on my BB WSJ reader and saw Liberty Media is in talks with Sirius on possibly getting it. So a bidding war may erupt between Malone & Ergen. Stay tuned...


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> How do you figure? If someone can generate for a company more than what they are paid, it's absurd to suggest that they are not worth their pay just because it's a really large amount.


Because the accounting is not that simple and no individual deal is made in a vacuum (pardon the pun). No single property (personality, sports exclusive, programming option, etc) is worth that kind of outlay for a business hemorrhaging money.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cforrest said:


> Just looked on my BB WSJ reader and saw Liberty Media is in talks with Sirius on possibly getting it. So a bidding war may erupt between Malone & Ergen. Stay tuned...


Oh no. No! I was OK with Charlie taking over, but not Malone. I may have to give up my Sirius subscription if this happens.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I'm not sure how my comment on them making, in my opinion, of hiring Stern for that amount of cash turned into "Howard tanked Sirius". Howard would have been stupid to turn down that deal. He got to do his show his way without any worry of FCC. He got paid a ton of money. My point was that Sirius set the example with Stern and therefor made it much harder to negotiate with other talent because they could point at Stern. 

If they had paid Oprah that amount I would have said the same thing. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but I really think they would have done better with a profit sharing type of contract with some of the early names that helped put them on the map. 

Well it is what it is so now we just get to see who wants to try their hand at satellite radio now.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Because the accounting is not that simple and no individual deal is made in a vacuum (pardon the pun). No single property (personality, sports exclusive, programming option, etc) is worth that kind of outlay for a business hemorrhaging money.


Nothing that you said there negates the basic fact that if someone who is making a huge salary actually causes a net gain for a company on balance with the payment of their huge salary, they are by definition worth what they are being paid, no matter how out of line anyone thinks it is... even if the company as a whole is hemorrhaging money. A net gain is a net gain is a net gain, regardless of whether or not that gain ultimately turns out to be enough to offset the other hemorrhaging and keep the company alive.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Oh no. No! I was OK with Charlie taking over, but not Malone. I may have to give up my Sirius subscription if this happens.


Maybe they'll split it between them and go back to being XM and Sirius.....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

kcmurphy88 said:


> Maybe they'll split it between them and go back to being XM and Sirius.....


As long as Charlie got Sirius, that would be fine with me. I've been less than satisfied with the changes Sirius has made since they merged.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

kcmurphy88 said:


> Maybe they'll split it between them and go back to being XM and Sirius.....


Wouldn't that be really cool if that could happen  But I'm sure it won't--still it is a nice idea


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

*Sirius XM in bailout talks with DirecTV
*
http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/sirius-xm-in-bailout-talks-with-directv/


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ehilbert1 said:


> Then why do you have D*? They have porn channels out the wazzoo. That makes no sense to me? You didn't want Sirius because of Howard,but your cool with all the porn on ppv?


For the record, I just happen to have an extreme dislike for Howard Stern, and I don't know how you made the jump from Stern to porn. In fact, the mention of Howard Stern and porn in the same paragraph makes me throw up a little in my mouth. :lol: (there, I just did it again - urp!)

I make absolutely no correlation between Howard Stern and porn whatsoever. Not sure where it is that you make that connection. :eek2:

Truth be told, I just happened to be looking at satellite radio at the time the news was breaking about Sirius/Stern. Just didn't feel like contributing to a company that would pay him that much. But hey, more power to 'em!


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> I don't know about the "as many customers" part, but I, for one, made the decision to go with XM at that time BECAUSE of what Sirius was doing with Stern.





cartrivision said:


> Choosing a satellite radio service because of what's *not* on it would be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of, and I would venture to say that nobody really did that when choosing between Sirius and XM.





JLucPicard said:


> Plus, I wanted MLB radio so I could listen to the Twins games while out on the lake!





cartrivision said:


> Of course, that's the real reason for your choice, and Stern had nothing to do with it. If Sirius hadn't hired Stern, that wouldn't change the fact that XM was the only one that had the programming that you _did_ want.


:up: There you go - someone pretty much gets it!

It didn't hurt my decision that by choosing XM, I was choosing against Sirius/Stern. Just voting with my wallet, folks - just voting with my wallet! :lol:


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Nothing that you said there negates the basic fact that if someone who is making a huge salary actually causes a net gain for a company on balance with the payment of their huge salary, they are by definition worth what they are being paid, no matter how out of line anyone thinks it is... even if the company as a whole is hemorrhaging money. A net gain is a net gain is a net gain, regardless of whether or not that gain ultimately turns out to be enough to offset the other hemorrhaging and keep the company alive.


A net gain when you're losing LOTS of money sounds like a lot of the excuses the bank executives have been giving since their implosion. Just doesn't make fiscal sense.

Glad I'm not a stockholder of XM-Sirius . . don't think they'll get a taxpayer bailout!


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> For the record, I just happen to have an extreme dislike for Howard Stern, and I don't know how you made the jump from Stern to porn. In fact, the mention of Howard Stern and porn in the same paragraph makes me throw up a little in my mouth. :lol: (there, I just did it again - urp!)
> 
> I make absolutely no correlation between Howard Stern and porn whatsoever. Not sure where it is that you make that connection. :eek2:
> 
> Truth be told, I just happened to be looking at satellite radio at the time the news was breaking about Sirius/Stern. Just didn't feel like contributing to a company that would pay him that much. But hey, more power to 'em!


Believe me with Stern's reputation it is very easy for most people to correlate Stern & porn. Sorry the poster gave you such a hard time for something you didn't even do! The tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be getting lower and lower in the Forum  Come on people please everyone is entitled to their OWN opinion. May be the use of the terms IMO or IMHO
would help this situation?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Oh no. No! I was OK with Charlie taking over, but not Malone. I may have to give up my Sirius subscription if this happens.


No doubt. If Malone takes over, Sirius will never get any new national HD channels.:lol:


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Hey, I'll go you one better. I like porn but I hate Stern. :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> No doubt. If Malone takes over, Sirius will never get any new national HD channels.:lol:


I like that. :lol:


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

Detailed story in this morning's Rocky Mountain News:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ne...-xm-radio-woos-directv-block-echostar-takeov/


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> For the record, I just happen to have an extreme dislike for Howard Stern, and I don't know how you made the jump from Stern to porn. In fact, the mention of Howard Stern and porn in the same paragraph makes me throw up a little in my mouth. :lol: (there, I just did it again - urp!)
> 
> I make absolutely no correlation between Howard Stern and porn whatsoever. Not sure where it is that you make that connection. :eek2:
> 
> Truth be told, I just happened to be looking at satellite radio at the time the news was breaking about Sirius/Stern. Just didn't feel like contributing to a company that would pay him that much. But hey, more power to 'em!


Now that makes a lot of sense. It's true a lot of people link Stern and porn and I apologize for thinking you did the same. What would you think if Liberty Media buys Sirus? I'm in no way trying to start anything. I just want to hear your opinion on it since they will probably keep Stern on. Again I apologize if I upset or offended you.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

ehilbert1 said:


> What would you think if Liberty Media buys Sirus? I'm in no way trying to start anything. I just want to hear your opinion on it since they will probably keep Stern on. Again I apologize if I upset or offended you.


One of our unique privileges as Americans is the ability to choose among a wide variety of options, many of which hold no attraction for us. Don't like Howard? Don't listen to him. Don't like porn, or shopping channels? Don't watch 'em. Recognize, however, that there are many many people out there who pay for XM, or DirecTV, so that they CAN enjoy those choices, and on some level that keeps the companies afloat so that everyone can CHOOSE the options that appeal to them.

I may be wrong, but right now I only see Liberty gaining control of SiriusXM as a good thing. Better than if E* got it, anyway.


----------



## YKW06 (Feb 2, 2006)

denvertrakker said:


> I may be wrong, but right now I only see Liberty gaining control of SiriusXM as a good thing. Better than if E* got it, anyway.


Especially as Orbitcast is reporting that Charlie seems inclined to let Mel continue at the helm if E* emerges victorious. (Karmazin's disastrous imposition of FM-radio playlists on the merged SXM being one of the major reasons subscriber growth has flatlined and churn has risen.)

And because it means a higher likelihood D* will get back its full complement of SXM feeds.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

YKW06 said:


> Especially as Orbitcast is reporting that Charlie seems inclined to let Mel continue at the helm if E* emerges victorious.


Malone would keep Mel, too.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

YKW06 said:


> Especially as Orbitcast is reporting that Charlie seems inclined to let Mel continue at the helm if E* emerges victorious. (Karmazin's disastrous imposition of FM-radio playlists on the merged SXM being one of the major reasons subscriber growth has flatlined and churn has risen.)
> 
> And because it means a higher likelihood D* will get back its full complement of SXM feeds.


Curious. Since it seems Mel has as much love for Charlie as a rattlesnake has for a mongoose, and he's trying to prevent a hostile takeover, why would Charlie keep Mel? The Malone/Karmazin scenario seems more likely, since after all it was Mel who solicited John.

"Sure, I'll buy your company, and by the way, you're fired"???????


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Dolly said:


> The tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be getting lower and lower in the Forum


Tempted to put this in my sig, not that I've been flawless in this regard, but it might help as a reminder.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

denvertrakker said:


> Curious. Since it seems Mel has as much love for Charlie as a rattlesnake has for a mongoose, and he's trying to prevent a hostile takeover, why would Charlie keep Mel? The Malone/Karmazin scenario seems more likely, since after all it was Mel who solicited John.
> 
> "Sure, I'll buy your company, and by the way, you're fired"???????


To me reading that if Charlie got the company he was going to keep Mel was the biggest shock yet :eek2: No one writing about this situation seems to take the Malone scenario seriously or should I say Siriusly? They think Malone is just trying to jack up the price that Charlie will have to pay.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

bidger said:


> Tempted to put this in my sig, not that I've been flawless in this regard, but it might help as a reminder.


I have to admit I even slipped up on this myself :blush: By all means put it in your sig it might help everyone


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

Dolly said:


> To me reading that if Charlie got the company he was going to keep Mel was the biggest shock yet :eek2: No one writing about this situation seems to take the Malone scenario seriously or should I say Siriusly? They think Malone is just trying to jack up the price that Charlie will have to pay.


Who's "they"? I took it completely at face value. I think Karmazin was horrified at the thought of Ergen gaining control, and looked to Malone as Sir Galahad to ride in and save the day - which he very well may do.

Do y'all know that when Mel and Charlie had a dustup back in the Viacom days, Charlie posted Mel's home phone number for angry customers to call?:eek2: Dirty pool, Charlie....oh, wait, I forgot that's how you work...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

denvertrakker said:


> Who's "they"?


I would like to know as well, because everything I've read has indicated that Malone is very serious about taking over Sirius XM, and only briefly mentions the possibility that he's just trying to drive up the price for Charlie.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

A side note to all of this is that Charlie has _much_ deeper pockets than Malone - the Rocky Mountain News has Ergen's net worth at over $8 Billion, versus Malone's at a comparatively paltry $2.3 Billion.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Whatever happens, I hope that the "yackety yack yack" on the "Music only" channels gets pulled. Gone. Completely. Bye-bye.

Schadenfreude would also be (quietly) hoping that the person(s) who thought that satellite music stations were better with "yackety yack yack" gets to listen to only the parts pulled from the music stations... 

But I'll accept their resignation instead... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

denvertrakker said:


> A side note to all of this is that Charlie has _much_ deeper pockets than Malone - the Rocky Mountain News has Ergen's net worth at over $8 Billion, versus Malone's at a comparatively paltry $2.3 Billion.


Who's is more liquid?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

denvertrakker said:


> A side note to all of this is that Charlie has _much_ deeper pockets than Malone - the Rocky Mountain News has Ergen's net worth at over $8 Billion, versus Malone's at a comparatively paltry $2.3 Billion.


I don't think either one of them is planning to buy the company with their own personal cash.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Whatever happens, I hope that the "yackety yack yack" on the "Music only" channels gets pulled. Gone. Completely. Bye-bye.


I think DJs add character to the channels, so I hope they don't. If you want a jukebox, get an iPod. Radio has DJs.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I think DJs add character to the channels, so I hope they don't. If you want a jukebox, get an iPod. Radio has DJs.


Then listen to HD Radio if you want character(s). 

I want a station programmed with music I don't own otherwise I would put it all on a DVD and let it go.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> Who's is more liquid?


Ah, good point. Only their accountants know for sure. Malone, however, may have some thing akin to lots of cash: a good relationship with Phil Anschutz, owner of Qwest and a bunch of other stuff. Malone is reputed to be a master of "the art of the deal" - I, for one, would love to see Anschutz join in on this one.


----------



## denvertrakker (Feb 6, 2009)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't think either one of them is planning to buy the company with their own personal cash.


Me either - but someone once said the best way to borrow money is to prove you don't need it....


----------



## YKW06 (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I think DJs add character to the channels, so I hope they don't. If you want a jukebox, get an iPod. Radio has DJs.


Terrestrial radio has DJs. Terrestrial radio has inane morning-zoo chatter. Terrestrial radio has constant interruptions for content-free "news" breaks and traffic reports every third song and all sorts of other mindlessness and distractions that make you wanna scream oh GAWD PLEASE PLAY THE NEXT %&#@ SONG ALREADY.

And that's why terrestrial radio is dying.

Music distribution for the new millennium is all about the music. Not about the people hired to talk between songs so listeners think someone other than the suits and the focus group folks are choosing the tunes; they're a misdirection, a ruse. New millennium music platforms have to be about rebuilding an honest and barrier-free relationship with audiences again. They _have_ to be; their intended audience -- the folks under 50 who are fleeing terr-rad in droves for their iPods and, at one time, XM -- already has music content they know and trust completely, and they aren't willing to sit through the charade (and, yeah, we all know it's a charade, Mel; you stopped fooling the listeners somewhere around the turn of the century) that FM and FM-inspired thinking insists we all waste our time playing.

That's not to say that hosted music has no place in the 21st Century. But it does have to be _value-added_ hosting. Guided music-discovery that goes beyond hearing some random FM puker back-announce "Brown-Eyed Girl" for the eleventeenth-bazillion time is like manna from the heavens. That's why XM audiences adore the Dylan show and the Petty program and loved the old Deep Tracks and Lucy and such so much.

But ninety-nine per cent of what passes for DJ yippety-yap on SXM now is the exact opposite of that. It's all about "hey, look at me!" chit-chat, rather than being about how special or unique the music is.

When it's no longer about the music, it's about terrestrial again. And none of us who've escaped that horror want to go back. Especially when we're paying not to.


----------



## Martinrrrr (Apr 5, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Whatever happens, I hope that the "yackety yack yack" on the "Music only" channels gets pulled. Gone. Completely. Bye-bye.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Amen to that. I'm relatively new to satellite (XM) and I was surprised to hear the yackety yack yack on the music channels. If they are looking for ways to cut costs, then axe the DJs.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I like the old MTV VJ's on the 80's station. If you weren't a teen in the 80's, then you probably don't get it. And Kim Ashley on The Pulse is usually good for a laugh or two.

Now all the interviews on the country station (60) can stop any time and they can bring back who was programming Sirius's country station.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

denvertrakker said:


> Who's "they"? I took it completely at face value. I think Karmazin was horrified at the thought of Ergen gaining control, and looked to Malone as Sir Galahad to ride in and save the day - which he very well may do.
> 
> Do y'all know that when Mel and Charlie had a dustup back in the Viacom days, Charlie posted Mel's home phone number for angry customers to call?:eek2: Dirty pool, Charlie....oh, wait, I forgot that's how you work...


I search Google news for all the stories on Sirius XM and all I have read mention the driving up the price angle to the story. May be we are just reading stories by different people? I don't trust Charlie, but as a Sirius XM sub I just want to get to the end of this soap opera


----------



## anubys (Jan 19, 2006)

Dolly said:


> I search Google news for all the stories on Sirius XM and all I have read mention the driving up the price angle to the story. May be we are just reading stories by different people? I don't trust Charlie, but as a Sirius XM sub I just want to get to the end of this soap opera


I think any scenario where the subscribers are affected is very remote...this is a company with almost 20 million subscribers...the only question in my mind is whether the shareholders get screwed or not...the company can file for chapter 11 and it would not affect the subscribers one bit...


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

anubys said:


> I think any scenario where the subscribers are affected is very remote...this is a company with almost 20 million subscribers...the only question in my mind is whether the shareholders get screwed or not...the company can file for chapter 11 and it would not affect the subscribers one bit...


Thanks for your words of comfort :sunsmile: But I still would like the soap opera to be over, but I guess it can't be many more days now until we know what is going to happen. But I must say I have to question the number of subs. So many people on Forums--this one and others that are more closely linked to XM especially and Sirius--have done nothing, but talk about
how they cancelled their service. So either Sirius XM has picked up a lot of new subs or there is a lot of lying going on


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Dolly said:


> So either Sirius XM has picked up a lot of new subs or there is a lot of lying going on


Two things. One, people on forums are not representative of the subscriber base as a whole. And two, they only report subscriber numbers quarterly. The latest information we have is from 3Q 2008, when they had 18,920,911 subscribers. Nobody is lying.

And if the number of subscribers doesn't go up when they report the 4Q numbers, I will be shocked. They haven't lost subscribers.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Whatever happens, I hope that the "yackety yack yack" on the "Music only" channels gets pulled. Gone. Completely. Bye-bye.
> Cheers,
> Tom


amen to that. It is why I miss the old music channels since they put on XM.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

I didn't mean Sirius XM was lying. They can't lie on those reports. I think there is some lying going on in some Forums. And Tom what channels are you and other people listening to where there is a lot of talk? I'm not hearing it on the channels I listen to. But may be it is when we are listening to the channels I only have Sirius XM in my car and I'm normally only in my car during the evening or at night may be all the talking is going on during the day?


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Dolly said:


> And Tom what channels are you and other people listening to where there is a lot of talk?


willies place.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Dolly said:


> .... And Tom what channels are you and other people listening to where there is a lot of talk? ...





dcowboy7 said:


> willies place.


No, that would be my mother in law. 

I'm listening to the decades 60's, 70's, and 80's; vinyl rewind (60's and 70's); and a few others that I haven't learned the current name of. 

While XM would put a tiny bit of "talk" like station ID and other self promotion, Sirius is going with more DJ "yackety yack yack" commentary as well. I just want to listen to music most of the time.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> While XM would put a tiny bit of "talk" like station ID and other self promotion, Sirius is going with more DJ "yackety yack yack" commentary as well. I just want to listen to music most of the time.


Me too! (My avatar pic is NOT an accident  ).

That's one of my biggest gripes with the post-merger changes to the XM channels - too much talking. The other one is possibly even worse from my perspective - the playlists have gotten smaller. I hear repeated songs WAY too often lately.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Dolly said:


> I think there is some lying going on in some Forums.


There probably isn't. Like I said, forum posters aren't representative of the subscriber base as a whole.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> No, that would be my mother in law.
> 
> I'm listening to the decades 60's, 70's, and 80's; vinyl rewind (60's and 70's); and a few others that I haven't learned the current name of.
> 
> ...


Ah that helps explain things. We aren't listening to the same channels except I have listened some to the 60's on 6 the only thing I have really noticed there was tonight they were having some sort of call in contest. Which I have to admit did remind me of FM radio  But other times I have listen to the 60's on 6 in the evening or night and all it had on it was song, after song, after song. However, since I can only listen to Sirius XM when I'm in my car I'm sure I can't listen to it anywhere near as much as the rest of you can that have a Sirius/XM home radio.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Dolly said:


> Ah that helps explain things. We aren't listening to the same channels except I have listened some to the 60's on 6 the only thing I have really noticed there was tonight they were having some sort of call in contest. Which I have to admit did remind me of FM radio  But other times I have listen to the 60's on 6 in the evening or night and all it had on it was song, after song, after song. However, since I can only listen to Sirius XM when I'm in my car I'm sure I can't listen to it anywhere near as much as the rest of you can that have a Sirius/XM home radio.


DIRECTV 

Actually most of my listening is also in the car. When I'm home we seem to gravitate between Boomerang (when the kids are visiting) or news in the background.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> DIRECTV
> 
> Actually most of my listening is also in the car. When I'm home we seem to gravitate between Boomerang (when the kids are visiting) or news in the background.
> 
> ...


Usually Tom I forget D* even has XM channels :lol: Plus they actually don't have the ones that I normally listen to


----------

