[Imyourzero]

Phil, thanks for the heads-up...I'll definitely check it out! My main preferences lie in hard rock/alternative but anything's better than the repetitive mix of Destiny's Child, Usher, Eminem, and John Mayer than I'm getting now.

 

[Salt Peanuts]

Well, guess there goes my plan of getting XM service. Paying that much for something I'd only use while in car doesn't work for me. Especially considering I'd end up with a useless gear should XM go belly up.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 I can't understand spending money on XM radio. With that $13.00 a month I could buy a CD every month, and I would probably be happier with that.

Well eventually one does get tired to living from CD to CD... XM is a welcomming change. You get to hear and explore new artists and genres (unlike crappy FM stations! Argh!). Under $10 a month is a great price for such a serivce, IMO... but $13? That's cuttin' it a little steep. Anyways, you should at least "audition" what XM has to offer. They have a three-day trial on their webpage (streams through your PC, no credit cards or gimmicky things like that) you should at least check out.

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu And I was about this close to becoming a subscriber this year. Oh well. Once High Definition Radio comes to bear in the marketplace, XM and Sirius satellite radio are toast...fini...kaput.

Sorry Welly, but I dont see it. Whether its High Definition or not, these channels will still be broadcasting the regugitated garbage that has made FM radio a total wasteland in this country and ended it as a source for anyone eho cares about music with incredibly rare exceptions ie; public radion stations and the rare college station. And, trust me, those whont be able to afford the equipment for High Def broadcasting in this, or posibly even the next decade.


JC

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy Imyourzero has the right idea here. Sirius and XM are going to continue ratcheting up prices. It's easy to telegraph small price increases over time when you only have one serious competitor and switching costs are relatively high (since you need to buy a whole new receiver). Then they'll eventually increase the number of channels to justify it, but in doing so they'll reduce the sound quality of several existing channels in order to free up bandwidth. I wish regular old FM radio didn't stink so badly in most cities.

This is not the same as cable television at all. There you are without options because there are no other cable providers in most areas, they can stick it to you any way they want. In areas where there is more than one company offering cable, amazingly, rates drop to half or less than previously. My sister, for example, who lives in a competitive cable area gets her Comcast service for less than half what I do, and with more features.


JC

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by remilard Neither sirius nor XM has ever posted a profit, they do have to find some way to do that eventually. They are both extremely overvalued. I believe I read in Money that XM and sirius combined are valued as high as clear channel, which has 30 times more revenues than both combined.

My grasp of economics may not be that good, but let me see how this would work. A company sells their product at a very reasonable, even cheap price, but isnt selling enough of them to make a profit. So they raise their prices to increase sales so they can make a profit? Where, exactly has that ever worked at any point in history?
Seriously, I do understand your point, but raising the price on a product that isnt yet selling well enough could be suicidal. I will stick with XM, but I fear that a LOT of others wont. I know, for a fact that based upon percentages I've personally seen, even right here in this thread, they have really hurt themselves in future sales.
Hey, I love XM, I want to know they will be here for posterity, but this wasnt the right move.


JC

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightfall This is not the same as cable television at all. There you are without options because there are no other cable providers in most areas, they can stick it to you any way they want. In areas where there is more than one company offering cable, amazingly, rates drop to half or less than previously. My sister, for example, who lives in a competitive cable area gets her Comcast service for less than half what I do, and with more features.

Your basic point is a good one, but satellite radio is fundamentally like cable television in a non-competitive market because of the high switching costs involved.

If someone wants to move from XM to Sirius for listening in the car, that person needs to:
- buy a new car radio that supports the competing provider (about $125)
- have the existing car radio removed and replaced with the new receiver (about $25, but you also end up having to basically throw away your old car radio, an additional psychological barrier)
- deal with the hassle of cancelling the one subscription and signing up for another.
Most people just aren't going to do this as long as the price increases continue relatively slowly. Is a $30/yr. price increase for XM enough to cause anyone to spend $150+ to switch over to Sirius? Not likely. The switching costs are just too high, and as long as the two providers telegraph their price increases slowly (a couple bucks more per month every year or so), consumers just won't switch. It's a lot more like a cable company monopoly than it appears on the surface. (Indeed, one might even argue that XM and Sirius have even greater pricing latitude than cable companies in cities with just one provider, since there really are only two providers and there is no threat of things like satellite TV and TV over digital phone lines.)

 

[Jeff Guidry]

I think 12.95 is a reasonable price to pay, considering that Sirius has been charging that much all along.

XM has launched a new satellite, and that costs lots of money. Every year, content providers renegotiate carry contracts and generally charge more for the satellite service to carry their signals. XM's paradigm is probably similar, getting charged more and more for the licenses to carry the music and the talk programs they offer.

Good luck finding a similarly convenient way to get that much music and other programming at that price.

 

[tyrion]

I don't believe anything that will offered on FM now or in the future will compare to xm or sirius. I have sirius because of their jam band station but listen as much to the jazz stations. I couldn't imagine not having satellite radio. In the Miami market, Clear Channel owns almost everything. They recently changed their alt rock station to hurban (hispanic urban). They have destroyed FM radio. I hope that both companies survive.

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion I don't believe anything that will offered on FM now or in the future will compare to xm or sirius. .

Agreed, completely.


JC

 

[waltermeyer]

My xm never changes from the comedy channel 150.

 

[stevesurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightfall My god, XM has the market all but locked up, why would they possibly do this now?

***Not so fast!***

When Howard Stern moves to Sirius; that's when I'll (finally!) install my Sirius radio.