Talk:Sirius XM Holdings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sirius XM Radio)
Jump to: navigation, search

OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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)

name change[edit]

Why the name change? Isn't this article primarily about the merger? Seems like merger should be still be in the title. Also this blocks use of the article name for any future merges of the XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio articles or creation of a new article on the merged company.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

According to at least a few sources, the companies have already formally merged under this title...the new company is simply operating the two services separately for the time being. The merger should be documented in this article, of course, but it is now past-tense for the most part. The two separate articles should be kept separate until the merger is complete and everything is operating under a single roof, so to speak, but the process of merging everything here can begin. Huntster (t@c) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Post-merger[edit]

Okay, merger is over. Is this article going to change to be about what's up today and in the future, or is it going to continue to be about the done deal? For instance, I'd like to see some text about the programming merge. What is the channel line up, what do these channels carry, which ones merged, which disappeared? And what about the people involved? What happened to the radio personalities and other employees? - Denimadept (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another possible question is, how long (if ever) will the company continue to operate as Sirius XM? I mean, there has to be some sort of date where (and this is the most likely instance) the XM name is dropped and it becomes just Sirius again. Just another possible question. -- M (speak/spoken) 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Why? Changing a name is an expensive proposition and can sometimes carry legal/social remifications. That's why 3M continued to keep its legal name as the "Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company" for decades even though it had significantly changed its focus and had been operating informally as 3M for decades. I see no reason that Sirius XM would drop the XM, since it also helps reinforce the idea that there's a third "*M" "radio" channel, AM, FM, XM. Of course, a merger or buyout with DirecTV or Dish Network would likely change all that -- they'd likely change their name to reflect their new association or simply be absorbed into the larger company. Banaticus (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Just an interesting note. Has anyone noticed the "I Heart Radio" app by ClearChannel? This is pretty much aimed squarely at Sirius/XM, and DJ's have said as much on the air. Since you can get Sirius/XM and I♥Radio on your iPhone or Blackberry, the only real difference between the two is that one is ad-free and subscription based, and the other is ad-supported and free. As Sirius/XM and broadcast companies both move to on-line distribution, it pretty much puts the lie to the NAB's arguments back during the merger days. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Programming sections to merge?[edit]

There are two sections on this page called programming. Should these be combined into one section with two subcategories? --Jefe317 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of the government & the FCC...[edit]

I mean, the FCC clearly stated that the condition of Sirius & XM getting licenses was that they could NOT merge. In other words, the government doesn't even follow it's own rules. This is why The American People need to overthrow this bullshit government and switch to direct democracy instead. Politicians only do what's best for them, not for the country. In a normal situation like this, it would've ended either of 2 ways:1) the FCC denies the merger reqest of Siruis & XM, or 2) either Sirius or XM gets their license voided/revoked and that license is then given to the #3 company that was applying for a license (either Primosphere Limited Partnership or the Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corporation). It doesn't matter about iPods, MP3 players, or any of that other crap, because those aren't in the satellite radio industry. The FCC is soo full of shit it isn't funny. This proves that The American People have completely lost control of this country. Maybe what this country needs is another American Revolution, just to accomplish some housekeeping in this country. I mean, the only voice that actually matter in politics is the Electoral College. They're the ones who actually vote for the President & such, not us. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we try to be civil here? You can make your point without all the profanity. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.127.58 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, well, I apologize for being a bit obscene, but the Sirius-XM situation proves that our current system of government DOES NOT WORK! I mean, we're expected to obey all these laws & rules that the government makes, when the government itself doesn't even follow its own laws & rules. Something needs to be done to rectify the Sirius-XM situation. Maybe this country needs to wise up, STOP electing politicians who are in the back pockets of Corporate America, & START electing people who are PROVEN to listen to the will of the American People. Again, I say that the Sirius-XM situation is nothing but bull$#!t. 24.15.112.231 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words, opinion-as-fact, incorrect tense, and dubious sources[edit]

This article is in dire need of a line-by-line review. It still talks about speculation on impacts of the merger as if it hasn't happened yet. And the entire article is filled with weasel words and opinion-as-fact (see the sound quality section: "A limitation of Sirius XM is the sound quality. ... (I)n many audio systems these services have low value, because of the limited sound quality"). It's obvious there's a popularity contest going on here, which isn't what the article should be about. At the very least, items without sources or with dubious sources (a single post on some forum?) need to be cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.136.160 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How many satellites?[edit]

There is confusion on the Web, and no definitive answer that I can find, about how many satellites are actually in service. http://www.n2yo.com/ shows seven Sirius/XM satellites (not nine), and http://www.heavens-above.com/ shows eleven (also not nine). I have also seen talk that the ground spare XM-4 was actually launched and is no longer a ground spare. Can anyone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.127.58 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the way to handle this is to say that the fact is unclear, that one source says X (add cite), another source say Y (add cite), and the actual answer may be something else. You know what you saw, you know where you found it, you can add the text and the cites if you wish, or post them here and someone else will do it. - Denimadept (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplication with Sirius Satellite Radio entry[edit]

There is a tremendous amount of information present in this article that is either already in-place or better-suited at Sirius Satellite Radio. For example, since this article is about the parent corporation, information about the technical aspects of the receivers or service itself seems irrelevant -- or at the very least, should be reduced to a brief two- or three-sentence overview. This information would be better suited (and in fact, already exists) in the other entry.

I'm proposing that this article be revised to deal with the finances and operation of the company, while moving the remainder of the information into the other entry. Or better yet, let's merge them. There is no reasonable reason why this entry shouldn't be reduced to a section under the other, better-maintained entry. As it stands now, we have two entries that heavily mirror each other. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.136.160 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Name Change Possibility[edit]

Shouldn't the name of this article be SiriusXM Satellite Radio, or at least SiriusXM Radio? It's spelled without the space at http://www.siriusxm.com/contactus. --216.249.144.14 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Crystal ball?[edit]

In regards to this statement in the post-merger timeline: "May 4, 2011 - Sirius XM announced that it will streamline its channel lineup with both Sirius and XM services sharing the same channel, with some exceptions."

Seeing into the future I suppose? (today is 5/2/2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.214.11 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What competitors are allowed to use the extra channels?[edit]

I've forgotten where I read it, but those extra channels XM and Sirius had to give up after the merger are still being used by competitors. I don't know who the competitors are or how one picks up these other channels.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Channel pages[edit]

OK, I recently merged the separate Sirius and XM channel lineup pages after there were no objections on a merger proposal. This now leads to whether or not we should merge the channel pages of the channels that merged. Unlike the Sirius and XM channel pages which had a lot of unnecessary overlap, this is more due to practicality reasons as a lot of the pages (especially defunct channels) are more-or-less stub articles. They also need to be better sourced (as does the newly-merged channel lineup page). Any thoughts on this? Jgera5 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

CLOSED:
Reject merging of {~/~/~} article(s) as per Consensus and Snow. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio be merged into Sirius XM Holdings. The two have become one company; they are no longer separate. They consist of the same lineup and they are marketed as "Sirius XM". I have no idea why wikipedia has always kept them separate since the merger in 2008. Their own corporate information does not categorize them as separate companies. You can no longer invest in Sirius and XM separately; there is only Sirius XM. They are advertized as one company, never separately. The channel lineups have already been combined. These articles suggest the companies are still separate when clearly they are one. The articles are also very outdated in terms of how "separate" the companies are. The channels are the same, the app is the same, it is put in cars as "Sirius XM" ([4]), even the radios are now the same. Yes, there is a distinction based on a user's specific radio (ie. if it were purchased before the 2008 merger, it will still read "Sirius" or "XM"), but as of now they are only marketed as Sirius XM. Saying there are two satellite radio services in the United States is inaccurate. It's a waste of space and information to have these two long articles describing the features of both companies when they merged and are now the same. Thechased (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

They should stay separate. They were founded by different groups prior to merger. if this were the case, then you would have to get rid of all the articles that deal with ATT/SBC/Cingular since they are the same company. Sirius XM is what ended up due to the merger. they merged out of necessity. both have separate history to their foundations up until they merge. Sirius xm holdings is the successor company to both of these companies. Any info post merger on the Xm article and Sirius article needs to be deleted because after the merger any addition to the article needs to go on the Sirius XM article. Both Xm and Sirius ceased to exist when Sirius XM was founded at the time of the merger.172.249.17.168 (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per 172.249.17.168. We do not delete articles simply because their subject merged or has been acquired. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree with above two users. The Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio entries should remain, as they have their own separate histories prior to the merger. Those entries should simply be updated to more clearly reflect the merger.--Bernie44 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, okay I understand the two companies were separate and deserve their respective history articles. More of what I am referring to is things like: in the Sirius article, their "Exclusive channels" are listed, as if they are a separate entity from XM (not the case anymore); the Sirius article's extremely outdated "Receivers" section, "Sirius Internet Radio" section, etc. that still make it seem like Sirius has its own separate services; etc. I believe everything in the "Sirius" and "XM" articles should be in past tense, leading up to a "Merger" section, directing readers to this "Sirius XM" article, where it lists all current features, programs, etc. I think all the nonsense about current services and channels, receivers, etc. in each individual article should be at the merged article. Sirius does not have its own features and neither does XM. They have the same; all information about former features should be referenced in past tense. I would make these changes myself, provided there is an agreement among others to do so. Thechased (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the Sirius and XM articles should remain, but should be revised to be in the past tense and to better reflect that the companies have merged, and I agree that the stuff about current services and channels, etc, should only be at the merged article.--Bernie44 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OPPOSE. The sirius and XM service are still seprate and require its service hardware to use. Until,the sirius service is shutdown (timeframe unknown) the sirius article shoud stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.220.141 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question[edit]

Earlier today, an anonymous IP edited Canada 360 (Sirius XM 172, at least the last time that article was updated) to claim that the channel has been shut down due to a CRTC complaint — however, I can find no indication on the CRTC's own website of the CRTC expressing any issues with or complaints about the channel. I also took the precautionary step of checking the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council website as well, given the extremely common phenomenon of people erroneously conflating the two and blaming the CRTC for the CBSC's handiwork, but there's no issue documented there either. However, as I'm not a current Sirius XM subscriber, I can't verify whether the channel has been shut down and the IP is making up their own explanation as to why, or whether the whole thing is just an outright hoax. Could somebody who has a Sirius XM radio check for me whether that channel is still operating or not? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Describe in more detail the three receiver types: Sirius, XM and SiriusXM and the Xtra channels only on SiriusXM packages?[edit]

Should some text be added to clarify the three receiver types and their respective packages? I was of the understanding that shortly after the merger, there were only SiriusXM type radios produced and the older Sirius and XM receivers were no longer produced. But I was mistaken, and as of 2017, only a few car companies offer the joint SiriusXM radio. With SiriusXM, additional Xtra channel programming is available with the SiriusXM package. This is not clear from the website.

From the FAQ on the SiriusXM (not Wiki) website:

"Each All Access package is basically the same. Select level packages differ in terms of the premium programming they each include. SiriusXM packages are the only packages that feature our Xtra channels."

"These are not available to Sirius or XM subscribers. The Xtra Channels are an additional 15+ channels of music, sports, entertainment and a collection of channels dedicated to Spanish language programming. The Xtra channels are currently available as part of the SiriusXM streaming lineup - so you can now enjoy them on your computer, smartphone, tablet and more. They are also included in several of our newest SiriusXM satellite subscription packages currently available only with Onyx Plus, Lynx or Edge radio, and the SiriusXM Connect Tuner" Mjkirk12 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Compression sound quality[edit]

There is no mention of complaints about sound quality. Web search shows numerous complaints that compression artifacts are obviously heard and audibly worse in quality than FM stereo broadcasts, but there are not many technical explanations why this is so Bachcell (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sirius XM Holdings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)