# When can XM subsribers get Howard?



## blooker68 (May 11, 2008)

You'd think someone would have had this worked out with all the time they had.


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

Within 2-3 months. It was part of the FCC agreement and Mel announced on Opie and Anthony yesterday that he will be included in the Best of SIRIUS package on XM.

Early price charts put it at $6.00 as an a la carte with a NEW radio (9 months away) and $14.99 to add it to existing XM Radios (including your current programming). 

In both cases a rip off when you already get XM202 now


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

blooker68 said:


> You'd think someone would have had this worked out with all the time they had.


"All the time they had" was being spent on getting the merger approved and on arranging the financing and other details required to close the deal.

Working on the details of how the merged companies will operate together starts after the merger is completed, as there are strict regulations limiting the two companies ability to collude together before the merger takes place.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

xzi said:


> Within 2-3 months. It was part of the FCC agreement and Mel announced on Opie and Anthony yesterday that he will be included in the Best of SIRIUS package on XM.
> 
> Early price charts put it at $6.00 as an a la carte with a NEW radio (9 months away) and $14.99 to add it to existing XM Radios (including your current programming).
> 
> In both cases a rip off when you already get XM202 now


Mel said on Stern's show last week that it will be $4 to add a few select channels (selected by Sirius), including Howard to *existing *XM radios, and vice versa for existing Sirius radios.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

It should not cost anything extra to have all the channels. Once they have consolidated/eliminated all the duplicate format music channels. all that is left are the talk channels which both carry already (FNC, CNN C-SPAN, etc) There will be plenty of bandwidth on both sides for the exclusive channels( Oprah, Howard, Martha, etc.). The sports channels are seasonal and have little overlap. On the weekends, XM shuts down several of the business channels during football season.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

machavez00 said:


> It should not cost anything extra to have all the channels. Once they have consolidated/eliminated all the duplicate format music channels. all that is left are the talk channels which both carry already (FNC, CNN C-SPAN, etc) There will be plenty of bandwidth on both sides for the exclusive channels( Oprah, Howard, Martha, etc.). The sports channels are seasonal and have little overlap. On the weekends, XM shuts down several of the business channels during football season.


Even if there is only one common set of music channels that are the same for both XM and Sirius, that won't save any bandwidth because the common channels still have to be broadcast twice... once on the XM system and once on the Sirius system. Same thing for CNN and any other common channels.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Ok, for the forty-leventh time..

THEY CANNOT CONSOLIDATE DUPLICATE MUSIC CHANNELS

The existing receivers are locked into whatever provider they were programmed for AND CANNOT BE REPROGRAMMED. This means the radios you see in BestBuy, the ones that come in your car from the dealership, the units you see at the auto-sound places - ALL OF THEM ARE LOCKED IN.

You can't say "hey there are two 80's channels, let's get rid of one" because you'll immediately have NINE MILLION subscribers who can't get the eliminated channel and can't even order it without buying a new radio THAT DOESN'T EXIST (the dual-format radio, that is).


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

djlong said:


> Ok, for the forty-leventh time..
> 
> THEY CANNOT CONSOLIDATE DUPLICATE MUSIC CHANNELS
> 
> ...


I know that.

I am talking about the same channel and both systems i.e 80's on 8 on both birds instead of XM's 80's channels and Sirius' Big 80's channel next to each other; Or scrap everything that XM has save the sports and broadcast Sirius programming over the XM birds (or vice versa)


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

But you still have to have an 80's channel on both services. That may save programming costs, but that doesn't save bandwidth.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

machavez00 said:


> I know that.
> 
> I am talking about the same channel and both systems i.e 80's on 8 on both birds instead of XM's 80's channels and Sirius' Big 80's channel next to each other; Or scrap everything that XM has save the sports and broadcast Sirius programming over the XM birds (or vice versa)


That still makes no sense whatsoever. They can't "scrap" any channel on either the Sirius or XM system without causing half of their customers to lose that channel. They can't free up bandwidth that way without first replacing at least every XM radio or every Sirius radio with an interoperable radio.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

if you want 600 channels.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

machavez00 said:


> if you want 600 channels.


Could you finish that sentence so it makes some sense in the context of this discussion? A quote of the particular point that you are commenting on might also help someone understand what point you were trying to make.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> That still makes no sense whatsoever. They can't "scrap" any channel on either the Sirius or XM system without causing half of their customers to lose that channel. They can't free up bandwidth that way without first replacing at least every XM radio or every Sirius radio with an interoperable radio.


You can dump the content-origination piece for similar channels and save the cost of production, but not bandwidth.

For example, they could stop producing the Sirius 80s channel. They could broadcast the XM 80s channel on both Sirius and XM. This would save no bandwidth, but would be considerable cost savings by not having staff to produce two fairly similar streams 24/7.


----------



## pez2002 (Dec 13, 2002)

leave the 60s on 6 alone dont touch it


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, the lack of understanding of the merger is finally starting to show. I guess people did actually beleive that right after it closed, they could get all the programming they want on their radio. Chances are that will never actually happen, even with a new radio that you will have to pay for because with all the channels they will eliminate (since each "duplicate" channel on each service actually are a littel different, any cosolidation will result in something someone wants being eliminated and replaced with somethign not as desireable) chances are that something each person really liked will be gone.


----------



## blooker68 (May 11, 2008)

They've only had a year and half to plan for this, so how about cutting managment some slack. Not.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

blooker68 said:


> They've only had a year and half to plan for this, so how about cutting managment some slack. Not.


The year and a half was spent on getting the merger approved. They were still two completely separate and independently managed companies until that happened.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> The year and a half was spent on getting the merger approved. They were still two completely separate and independently managed companies until that happened.


Add to that by law they had to continue to compete and not work together.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Lee L said:


> Well, the lack of understanding of the merger is finally starting to show. I guess people did actually beleive that right after it closed, they could get all the programming they want on their radio. Chances are that will never actually happen, even with a new radio that you will have to pay for because with all the channels they will eliminate (since each "duplicate" channel on each service actually are a littel different, any cosolidation will result in something someone wants being eliminated and replaced with somethign not as desireable) chances are that something each person really liked will be gone.


And your programming was subject to change without notice on each of the platforms prior to the merger, as well. Often, the choice is to have most of what you want with a company or to have none of what you want when they go out of business. Both were hemorrhaging money or they wouldn't have sought the merger?

Would you rather be right and have no satellite radio service? That is most definitely where they were headed.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I understand the realities of the business, though the sat companies only have their own mismanagement and crazy spending to blame for the position they were in. However, it is extremely frustrating to see so many people beleiving something totally different about the reality of the merger and what was possible and being so gung-ho for it, when it turns out that it is nothing like they think.
I have a feeling if that people had really read what the companies were saying and looked at the position they were in WRT bandwidth, the merger would have had much less support in the public's eye.

If the merger did not happen and the companies died, it would suck, but if they cut so much that it is no longer what I enjoy listenting to (and they have gradualy been doing this for years IMO), how is that any different really? Also, if one or both went out of business, it is likely that someone else would have given it a go.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

AlL I want to know is when I will be able to get NASCAR back on XM. Dealers are giving away large GM SUV's, but I need to be able to get my NASCAR before I will buy one.


----------



## mercator1 (Sep 11, 2008)

There was no merger. This was a takeover by Sirius. XM had more subs, but also more debt. I think you will see more and more XM content being dropped in favor of similar Sirius content. And, if you don't think that the end result is that the same number of channels you get on XM will be more expensive, you're fooling yourself. Hey FCC, good job protecting the public!


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> AlL I want to know is when I will be able to get NASCAR back on XM. Dealers are giving away large GM SUV's, but I need to be able to get my NASCAR before I will buy one.


All you need is one of these.....

http://www.tss-radio.com/sirius-connect-sirgm1-p-228.html

For $89, it turns the XM head-end (which remains in the dash of your GM vehicle) into a Sirius radio.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

mercator1 said:


> There was no merger. This was a takeover by Sirius. XM had more subs, but also more debt. I think you will see more and more XM content being dropped in favor of similar Sirius content. And, if you don't think that the end result is that the same number of channels you get on XM will be more expensive, you're fooling yourself. Hey FCC, good job protecting the public!


Bingo! I like both services, but I do think XM will get more Siriusified over time, which will suck. The only thing the FCC knows how to do is screw over the public.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> All you need is one of these.....
> 
> http://www.tss-radio.com/sirius-connect-sirgm1-p-228.html
> 
> For $89, it turns the XM head-end (which remains in the dash of your GM vehicle) into a Sirius radio.


But you lose the ability to get XM. I would love it if someone could come out with a combo radio box that could be installed.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Lee L said:


> But you lose the ability to get XM. I would love it if someone could come out with a combo radio box that could be installed.


I'll bet that a combo converter will be available sometime next year after the other interoperable radios become available.


----------

