Talk:Sirius XM

OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS

This section seems extremely unfair and one sided. It makes the argument against merger seem to be a fight between the National Association of Broadcasters and Sirius/XM. It seems to imply that the NAB is the evil side, versus the good of the merger, and that their fight against merger is only based on greed and spurious arguments. This includes calling the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio a shill group run by the NAB. In truth, the connections between the c3sr and NAB are tenuous at best, with the c3sr bringing up a defense against merger that seems to reflect the public's interest.

• The NAB is the largest anti-satellite organization out there, and they've been consistently fighting against satellite radio since the beginning. If you'd watched the first Senate hearing on this, you'd have seen that the NAB was the only well-known organization present. I've done some research on this, and every time XM or Sirius tries to expand, the NAB is fighting them. The NAB opposes this merger on business grounds, not ethical ones. In fact, I haven't seen any serious opposition by anyone that doesn't have an axe to grind for one reason or another. Interestingly enough, the subscribers of both services seem generally opposed, but that's because they're all afraid that service will suffer. As for me, I'm not specifically pro or anti-merger, but I detest the kinds of underhanded ploys that the NAB has been making, and I will point that out whenever I see it. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The c3sr's argument should be represented here, as it sheds light on collusion between XM and Sirius, in their dealings with the FCC. [1][2]

• they're a sock puppet for the NAB. Their web site has been up for a year, and there's still no list of members, sponsors, or anything else that lends any validity to their claims. I even tried to call them in the past, and the phone number went straight to a law firm - one that works for the telecom lobby. That's obviously no "consumer group", but rather a lawyer or group of lawyers funding a lobbying campaign. Considering the fact that this is patently deceptive, what makes you think that anything they say should be given any merit? -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of the FCC ignoring a prime rule of granting the two available satellite broadcasting licenses, that if there was a merger one of the licenses would have to be returned to the public. This is an important caveat to their original licensing and is the main point of XM/Siruis' argument that terrestrial radio is enough competition to warrant the combining of their licenses.

To sum up, the article is not balanced and reflects more the opinions of those in favor of the merger, with major facts omitted. --Stilleon (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, that's been brought up time and time again, but it doesn't matter. The issue at stake here isn't FCC licensing: it's the future of satellite radio. The licensing issue is really a sideline issue to distract from the real debate: is one company better than two? If the FCC grants approval, it'll effectively invalidate that requirement anyway, so there's no point in belaboring that argument. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

c3sr

I added info on the C3SR, as they are certainly relevant here - however, there is no article and I don't really have time to put one up at the moment. If anybody has time, please put up a stub or something for them and link to it rather than their EL on the See Also section. JaedenStormes 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The section titled "Criticisms" seems to contain nothing but opinons, with no link to any reputable source - specifically the argument that this will create a monopoly.

• I cleaned the section up to be more NPOV/encyclopedic. Hopefully this helps, because the section does make some valid points. JaedenStormes 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Your text looks much better than mine. At this point, I'm just trying to get everything in that I can find. The monopoly issue is a little indirect: both yesterday's press release and today's webcast address it by pointing out that they compete with satellite tv, cable tv, music download services, and Internet radio. The monopoly issue itself is always a concern for federal regulators when dealing with mergers; in recent memory, the FTC has blocked a few mergers between large companies in various industries specifically because the result would be a monopoly. In fact, DirecTV and Dish network tried to merge a few years ago and were blocked for that very reason.

I'm still trying to make the article look a little better. Don't hesitate to make changes that improve the article, and add news items as they come up. My plan was to put breaking news in the top, sorted by date (newest first), and change the other sections as the information in breaking news applies to other areas. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the C3SR stuff, I don't think it's encyclopedic. I'm trying to keep this article NPOV. Since someone has already pointed out that breaking news info belongs on the news Wiki, I may add this information to an article over there and set up an inter-wiki link.

Here's the web site for the C3SR: Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio

• Respectfully disagree. A group of students forming a protest group is no less encyclopedic than the NAB's complaints. For the record, I am very pro-merger and certainly am not trying to promote the C3SR's agenda. That said, I do think they have a place in this discussion. JaedenStormes 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This point is no longer valid as this student group is filing arguments in Federal courts. --Stilleon (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• From everything I've been able to dig up, the C3SR is nothing but a shill for the NAB. There's been some evidence (I don't have it on hand right now) that the NAB is the primary backer for the C3SR financially, . This is NOT a student protest group, but one or two guys who are working for the broadcast industry, making it look like they're students. The last time I tried to contact them, the phone number rang to a law office. If this was really a large group of concerned students, you'd think that they would have a lot more material supporting their claims. Don't give them any more credence by echoing any of their arguments here. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More stuff:

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/busted-c3sr-supported-by-the-nab.html

http://www.hear2.com/2008/05/show-me-the-con.html

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/williamsmullen022807.htm

I just visited the C3SR page again. From what I can see there now, there's nothing to indicate that they're even a "coalition." One guy with a web site doesn't deserve any credence. They're making a lot of noise, but without more evidence that they're anything but a web site and a PO box, they shouldn't be taken seriously. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeaters

I'm still digging up info on the XM and Sirius repeaters. what I'm posting in the talk pageis mostly notes. If you find more data, please append it here and I'll try to sort it out.

What I know for sure right now

the XM repeaters use a dish antenna for the receive side. This makes it impossible for them to pick up the Sirius satellites, since the Sirius satellites move. The XM birds are stationary in relation to the ground.

Speculation based on what I do know

XM can't legally transmit outside of their licensed spectrum. Since radio transmitters can only transmit on one frequency at a time, there would have to be a transmitter module for each frequency that XM transmits on. To add frequencies for Sirius channels will require additional transmitter modules.

This is the link to some information about an XM repeater site: http://www.telebeans.org/telco/towers/notes/xm_radio.html

This link shows the SDARS spectrum: http://images.xmfan.com/sdars.gif

It looks like Sirius uses two frequencies, and XM uses four for the satellites. I know that the Sirius signals are redundant, I'm unclear about whether you need two or all four XM freqs to get a signal.

So best case: two XM freqs are needed and one Sirius freq is needed. This would mean adding one transmitter and one receiver to the repeater cabinet. Since the actual bandwidth is different, the physical design of the unit will be different. This means that XM can't just "turn on" hardware in existing boxes unles these are Software Defined Radios... however, SDR is still pretty much in its infancy, and when these boxes were designed and certified, SDR wasn't in public use yet.

more as I find it. I'll only post verified info on the article itself.

Sirius DOES use a getostat bird for their repeater network, according to Sirius Satellite Radio. However, it's a Ku Band satellite, incompatible with the XM repeaters, which pull signal straight off XM's SDARS band signal. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good research, but I don't think we have anything verifiable at this point to say anything in the article about whether changes in the repeaters will be needed or not.72.88.248.252 12:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A few people over on XMFan were concerned about the repeater situation, since they use their radios inside of an office, and the only way they can get signal is from their local repeater. If only half the stations come through, that will be a problem. I'm going to keep my eyes open on that one. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For each company, the repeaters are just that--they repeat the satellite signal (albeit Sirius does so through a parallel Ku band feed, as noted above). So questions of repeater compatability essentially are the same as receiver satellite techical standards, discussed in the article. Because the companies promise that the two systems would persist (with their different transmission and coding techniques) for some time, the repeaters will as well, each repeating one system's transmissions. (The companies say the content will change somewhat post-merger, trimming some duplicative feeds to give existing subscribers the "best-of-the-best" of both systems.) Single system radios will still "see" that system's repeaters. Interoperable radios will "see" both satellite feeds--and both sets of repeaters. Telecom satellite 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, I've seen conflicting reports of what they're going to do. As far as I can tell, removing "duplicate" content won't help, since both networks are full. The only way to actually add new content will be for people to either have 2 radios or a universal receiver. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true in general, with caveats. Sports should be simple--seasons and time of day will support substantial bandwidth sharing between program feeds. And both companies have expanded their offerings over time, even apart from the proposed merger. Telecom satellite 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that, for Sirius, the repeater signal (from the repeater to the receiver) is not a pure copy of the satellite signal. While the underlying data, is, of course, the same, the encoding technology is very different. "coded orthogonal frequency-division multiplex (COFDM) for the ground and time-division multiplex quadrature phase-shift keyed (TDM-QPSK) for the satellites" [3]. However, this doesn't change the points you make, which are all still valid.72.88.254.234 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My speculation is that XM and Sirius receivers need only an over-the-air firmware upgrade to read each other's signals. The antennas have an amplifier built into them (powered through the antenna cable by the receiver) because a 2.3 GHz signal needs to be pretty strong to make it through that thin cable (putting a more powerful amplifier in the antenna will not give you better reception). Because Sirius and XM use adjacent RF bands it would be technologically difficult to make the antenna only work on one of those bands. We need someone who has both services to try swapping the antennas. Knowing that, we can assume that the units can receive both Sirius and XM signals, but can they processes both signals?

• From what I've heard on the forums, You can swap antennas. However, antennas are just a way of getting RF in to the receiver. The real problem is that the encoding technologies - how the bits are turned in to radio waves - are different. You can't take a receiver chip made for one encoding technology and make it work with a different one. No firmware update can physically re-write a chip's innards. The other issue is the software decoding - turning the compressed data in to uncompressed data. That's also done by a DSP chip which is physically hardwired for that bitstream. Again, you can't physcially re-write that chip. Aside from that, the XM control protocol (what the head units use to talk to the receivers) is limited to 255 channels. I know this because I've written software to interface with various XM tuners. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Inside each receiver is a tuner (in a metal enclosure, a little bigger than a pack of gum). The tuner can be taken out of one unit and put into a totally different receiver (though this would void your warranty and might be against Sirius's terms and conditions). The SID is part of that tuner, so if you swap the tuners in a receiver you are also swapping the SIDs, and this will show up if you look at the SID in the menu options. Features such as the FM transmitter, 44/30 minute cache, on screen menus, etc are not handled by the tuner, they are handled by the rest of the circuitry in the unit. This interoperability between models suggests that every tuner is identical (may be smaller in the Stilleto), except for the SID.

• XM has (I think) 3 different tuner units. XM manufacturers the tuner, and then the individual companies basically wrap it in a box and sell it. At its most basic level, you can build an XM radio with nothing but the tuner module and some wires to connect to a computer's RS-232 port. Pop open an XM Direct, for example, and you'll see that there's basically nothing in there but that tuner module. The PCR is only a little more complex, in that it has a USB<->RS-232 converter inside. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Those of you with Sirius are probably familiar with the message "Updating Channels" on your screen even though the channel lineup hasn't changed. My understanding is that sometimes "updating channels" is a firmware update for the tuner. Sirius is constantly modifying the audio compression codec (not to be confused with the bit rate) to squeeze better sound out of the same bit rate. The sound quality has improved slowly over time because of these little tweaks. This means that the firmware in the tuner can be upgraded over the air to adapt to new codecs (much like how the firmware on MP3 players can be upgraded to work with new file formats). If everything I have said is correct thus far, then I see no reason why Sirius and XM could not switch to the same codec and send a firmware upgrade over the air to the receivers so they will work with the new codec.

• The codec may not be the issue. The issue is the RF section: how you turn radio waves in to bits. The codec is only involved after you have bits. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that I'm not sure of is if the tuner can be told to process the other band in addition to the one it is currently accepting. It's a question of whether or not a firmware upgrade can tell the tuner to look at both bands. My guess is that it can process both bands because they are so close together that I don't think there would be any hardware limitation.

• There is on the XM side. You can only tune 255 channels. There's no firmware update that can update the head units: the car stereos or the control software built in to units like the SkyFi. It simply can't be done. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sirius originally applied for usage rights of the bands currently used by both XM and Sirius. The FCC would not give them that whole band and instead gave them half, shortly after, XM came along and the other half was given to them. Because it was originally their intention to use that whole band, they may have designed their hardware to work with both bands. Also, years ago Sirius went to XM because they wanted to merge, but XM didn't want to. It's clear that for a long time it has been Sirius's intention to combine the two bands. If everything I have said so far is correct, then I would suspect it is a similar scenario for XM, and therefore there would not need to be separate streams for Sirius receivers and XM receivers. Chris01720 06:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To fix my previous statement, what I referred to as the "tuner" is actually the "baseband processor". I pretty positive the baseband processor and tuner are in the same small removable package. The rest of the radio (and what the baseband processor/tuner are in) is the head unit. For more info, visit http://www.answers.com/topic/sirius-satellite-radio?cat=biz-fin and go down to the section labeled "Receiver Technology". Chris01720 02:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, the fact that the tuner module is made by Sirius or XM, and the head units are not makes it impossible for either company to update the software in the head units, so there's still a limitation in what the head units can do - if the control protocol doesn't allow for band switching or tuning more than 2^8 channels, you're back to needing a new radio.

XM Branding and Corporation to be kept

Can someone include this?

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4980805&Type=HTML

70.64.50.221 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done --Napnet 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the filing says. THe filing says that The new corporation will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Sirius, which will have the brand name. So, in effect, Sirius will own XM. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please cite the specific text in the filing that says that either the XM "brand" will survive, or that the Sirius "brand" will survive? My reading of the filing is that Sirius is creating a subsidiary, which will be merged into XM, which will be owned by Sirius. But the fact that a company named XM will still exist, or that a company named "Sirius" will still exist, says absolutely nothing about what the brand names will be. From what I can tell, Sirius and XM have said nothing concrete about how the post-merger products will be divided, combined, marketed, branded or anything else, other than some vague comments about enhanced services and ala carte options. I think that saying that the either the XM or the Sirius "brand" will "be kept" is unsupported by the current information, and should be deleted from the article. 72.88.248.252 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a note with cite that both XM and Sirius brands will be kept. 72.88.248.252 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a question. XM is associated with Clear Channel, the much disliked conglomerate that owns a huge number of radio stations in America. Sirius is not. After the merger, how does Clear Channel fit into things?

CC's existing contract with XM ends in 2008. The merger probably won't be complete until 2008. At a guess, I'd say that, in a bid to save bandwidth, CC won't fit in to the new scheme of things. Of course, that's speculation. Nobody really knows the answer yet. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to wikinews

I appreciate everyone's enthusiasim with wikinews here, but ther's a few things.

• You can not copy wikipedia content to wikinews (for copyright issues). However you can copy wikinews stuff to wikipedia (if anyone wants the long and involved full why explanation please say so, and I'll tell you)
  • Publishing something on Wikipedia grants the Wikipedia community rights to use it, but it does not take away your right to publish the same material elsewhere. You may reproduce your own words elsewhere, as long as they're your words. No attribution or permission is required. :) -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikinews articles should not be linked to until published (I published it now though so that doesn't matter)
• Wikinews articles aare not works in progress. This means updating them as suggested in source proablly won't work.
• When linking please use {{wikinews|article here}} on {{wikinews2|article1|article2}} for 2, or {{wikinewshas}} for multiple articles
  • If the wikinews article is very supplementary to this article, I geuss you could use the standard see so and so template, but you'd have to have a good reason/the article must really supplement this one.

Bawolff 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines on Wikinews says that if you have an ongoing thing (like this merger), to create a master page that links to all of the articles. My plan is publish more articles as new items as they come. At that point, I'll link to the master page, rather than the individual articles. Or I could just link to the articles directly from here. The whole point is to avoid turning this article in to a series of news articles, since someone objected to that. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats okay. Bawolff 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Current events

Plenty of current event articles have a news timeline. Here's just one example: Global_spread_of_H5N1.

The whole point of this article is to have a synopsis of the current status of the merger. The only way to do that is to link to news sources. I really don't want to edit war over this, but unless you find a better way to keep this stuff, I will keep adding it right back in, just like it is.

If someone out there wants to take a stab at doing a better job of formatting the current events section, then please do. But simply removing it is not servicing the Wikipedia readers. Every edit should be an improvement; removing the current events section is not.

If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. As it is, just saying "this isn't encyclopedic", without pointing to relevant policies, isn't doing anybody any good.

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

and another 2006 Ipswich murder investigation

one more Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Timeline]

I believe this establishes precedent.

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already a timeline for the merger. Can't this just go there, with less focus on news-like items?--digital_me 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant policy you were looking for at WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. In this case, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (see subpart 6). That's what Wikinews is for. Hope this helps. Bumm13 06:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm looking for. I have removed any minor news blips and have linked to the Wikinews article that IS summarizing daily news on the issue. All information in this article is verifiable, and I hope I'm touching the important points in the merger without getting into the day to day minutae that will likely change over time anyway. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite, AKMask. That's definitely an improvement. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to AKMask's great re-write, I think we have a section that both covers the highlights (to date; there'll be more to come as the Congress, The FTC, the FCC, the SEC, and the stockholders all make their opinions known) and is encyclopedic. I'm going to close the RfC. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Switching order of names/pictures

Don't you think that making anonymous edits just to re-order the pictures on the page is a little petty? I'm trying to make the article as neat and professional as possible, and part of this means that we're consistent with the ordering of the names. If you think Sirius is better than XM, or the opposite, then you have a right to an opinion, but please stop making petty edits to the page just to reinforce your POV.

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although complaining about editing wars probably won't stop the problem, however I've got an idea that might. Instead of arbitrarily listing them in one order or another to begin with, perhaps list them alphabetically. This way, NPOV is preserved, and personal preference can not be cited as the reason for the order. Spazure 08:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Milestones

what exactly is meant by "The following milestones have been set for the merger"? Who set these? Is this a schedule set by some regulatory body? Set by XM and Sirius? Or are they simply milestones that have been reached along the way. I've not seen any indication that there are set dates that must be met for some reason, especially for regulatory approval. IT happens when it happens.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• When XM first announced the merger, that timeline was in one of the e-mails I got. I can't find it now, but XM and Sirius both published the same information. I wanted to keep it distinct from the timeline, since it was published material and a projection of their expected plans. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NAB Opposition

Any implication that the NAB has a state goal of driving satellite radio out of business to reduce competition for terrestrial radio is false. There is no place where this stated goal has been elucidated. There is plenty of innuendo, supposition and implication, but this is not a stated fact. Hence any inclusion of this statement is patently POV, and will be removed from the article. --Mhking (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's never been a "stated" goal, but it can certainly be inferred from their actions. Every time XM or Sirius tries to expand, the NAB is right there, dogging their heels. The NAB has, in fact, been the biggest opponent of satellite radio since its inception. A goal doesn't have to be stated to be true. However, your point is well taken: it's unfair to make the statement that the NAB is trying to eradicate satellite radio, unless the NAB says it for themselves or undeniably proves it through their actions. 75.214.9.186 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MERGER APPROVED!

Get going, i've seen only two tiny updates so far. On the July 29th Howard Stern show he mentions that they are going to be able to offer lower prices options.169.132.18.249 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Get going with what, exactly? Any specifics about the merger can be had on http://www.xmmerger.com/ or http://www.siriusmerger.com. This article should be about the new company, not about the merger. However, we don't really know anything about the new company yet. We don't know what they're going to offer, how programming is going to propagate from one service to the other, or what channels will go and which will stay. As was pointed out to me when I started this article a year and a half ago... wait and see, don't post stuff prematurely. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

umm, Ok, well good job! Carry on. The new page looks good.169.132.18.249 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)