Talk:XM Satellite Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Radio (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Modulation Method[edit]

What method of modulation does XM use? Is it the same as Sirius? What does Sirius use? I'm assuming it's some kind of pulse code modulation, but I would like specifics. 129.186.159.115 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge XM satellite radio footprints into Article[edit]

I have suggested and tagged XM satellite radio footprints for merging with this article. I did a little rewriting and reformatting of the article to make it fit in a little better as a section, however, it may still require a little bit of cleanup, as I am a new to wikipedia. If no one disagrees, I'll go ahead and attempt the merge. BTW, when I'm suggesting a merge, should I tag this page as well, or is the source page being tagged enough? Thanks Agonizing Fury 22:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The map is fine, but the information isn't completely correct. There are only 800 repeaters in the US and between 80 and 100 in Canada. Much of the info in your piece is already in the "Technology" portion of the XM Radio piece. If you want to add the map that would be fine, but if you add the info, it could be seen as redundant. 75.10.136.163 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I will ensure that any information that is either redundant, or conflicting with other information in this article does not get merged. That is the main reason I wanted to merge the article as it is mostly redundant or conflicting. I just didn't want to completely strip the article of all information when I rewrote it, in case the merge was frowned upon by others in the community. Since this is not a very busy page I'll wait another 24 hours or so before merging, and do a little more research into some of the facts before I merge it. Thanks again Agonizing Fury 11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Case Study[edit]

"XM Satellite Radio was covered in Harvard Business School's Case 9-504-009." What does this mean?-User:naryathegreat | (talk) 02:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Possible answer: It probably means that it was covered as a case study in Harvard Business School. Case studies are commonly used as teaching tools. The Case Number may be the one assigned by the school to an analysis of the XM business model, implications, etc. For more information, you might wish to contact the school directly.

XM Transponder/satellite questions[edit]

I have a question: I would like to know why using only one transponder in the XM-1 and XM-2 satellites (covered in the "Technology" section of this article) will rectify the shortening of the life of these satellites from 15 years to only 6 years. From what I read, the satellites suffer from a solar concentrator fogging problem. I can guess that perhaps it "strains" the batteries somehow to use more than a single transponder to compensate for this shortage, which would mean that using two satellites with one transponder each might possibly double the life of the batteries. (I gather that XM-3 ("Rhythm") is supposed to help compensate by moving into XM-2's old spot.) But this proposed explanation is ONLY a guess. I would like a firmer answer.

Also, what are XM's plans to follow up on its XM-4? Is there an XM-5? Are there going to be satellites that will replace the current constellation of three satellites (XM-1, -2, and -3)? Since -4 ("Roll") is apparently a ground spare, what is purpose is XM-5 going to serve? What happens when the six-to-fifteen (depending on contingencies) year lifetimes of XM-1, -2 and -3 are up?

  • XM-4 was just launched and is now live. XM-1 and XM-2 are now both powered-off as in-orbit spares with XM-3 and XM-4 as the only active birds. The article has been updated to this effect. XM-5 is in the works as a ground-spare, like XM-3 was before it was launched due to the predicted pre-mature failure of XM-1 and XM-2. It is to be built by Space Systems/Loral however, rather than Boeing. [1] 74.70.48.140 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're essentially correct. I don't think the batteries have much to do with it; once the panels are running, battery storage is mostly a moot point (except if the sattelite is in an eclipse). The big problem is simply that the solar panels can no longer generate 100% power, meaning that only one transmitter can run.

-- TomXP411[Talk] 05:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove external link?[edit]

I believe that the external link XMLiving.com, which was added by 71.49.138.36 is an advertisement for a commercial product, is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and should be removed. Do others agree? Joe 14:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. I rolled back those links in the 3 articles they had been added. Wikibofh 20:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't see a problem with a specified section entitled "external links." I find this a useful section that is included on many other wiki entries. It seems the rule that has been established on this particular wiki entry, is that external links posted with some connection to a commercial product for sale should be deleted. Therefore I took the liberty of deleting the XM Fan site links, as they filter traffic from their "fan" site directly to their e-commerce store. By your own definition, this would be "inappropriate" and according to wikibofh "vandalism." I’d like to see a useful external links section included here, but for now, what's done to one should be done to all. By the way Wikibofh, I don't appreciate the elitist tone of your private message. It spoils the usefulless of an online "community." Thanks. nhansen aka 71.49.138.36 20:57, 15 October 2005

6 million subscribers?[edit]

"As of October 2005, XM leads Sirius Satellite Radio in subscriptions in the U.S. satellite radio market with over 6 million suscribers."

As of 1/1/06, though XM's official guidance was that they expected more than 6 million subscribers by the end of 2005, they have not officially announced the numbers for 05, and certainly not back in October.

  • However, they did release this press release indicating that they are over the 6 million mark. Next time, please sign your comments with four tildes (~) Ajwebb 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

true mobile services[edit]

"XM is currently the only sattelite radio service to offer true mobile services, utilizing the built in antenna in its MyFi to transmit a live satellite signal to Ipod sized battery operated devices." What does this mean?

  • it means xm is the only satellite radio service with a portable device.--IAMTHEPEOPLESCHAMP 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restoring this fact. (Countzer 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

XM solely brand name[edit]

There's no mention of XM being solely a brand name, which I'm assuming is the case as a pun on AM (Amplitude modulation) and FM (Frequency modulation) radio, i.e. "XM" doesn't mean anything (Am I correct?). Nagelfar 04:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • XM is the brand name. XM does not stand for anything. You are correct in that.--XMBRIAN 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add this information to the article? I think it's important from a technological standpoint to understand that it's only a brand name. CoatThese (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct year of founding?[edit]

In both the first section of the article and in the infobox it states that American Mobile Radio Corporation was founded in 1992. But in the timeline it states that it was founded in 1988. Which one is correct?--XMBRIAN 19:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It is correct, just confusing. "American Mobile Satellite Corporation" was founded in 1988. In 1992 they spun off a wholly owned subsidiary company known as "American Mobile Radio Corporation". It is this company that would go on to become XM Radio. The previous one founded in 1988 would change its name to Motient in 2000, and remain on as the parent company of XM until 2001. --homer985 03:20, 28 March 2006

XM Radio in cuba[edit]

The footprint for XM coverage obviously includes Cuba. Are they allowed to listen in cuba?--C5mjohn 08:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

XM's footprint can cover areas where it would be illegal to listen. For example, XM's satellite footprint covered Canada before Canada allowed XM recievers. XM 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

heard "you can swear" so...FCC?[edit]

I searched for "FCC" on the page but couldn't find it. How come broadcasting rules are different? Does the FCC not have jurisdiction over the frequencies in question?

It's not a broadcast medium, it's a subscription medium, like satellite TV. -- Coneslayer 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the very first sentence should incorporate this important fact.

WiMax controversy -- add "Criticism" to article?[edit]

According to an article on Orbitcast, XM has been stirring up controversy from the RIAA, FCC and now WiMAX. Should we add a "Criticism" section to the article?


External Links[edit]

There has been a debate about the external links, specifically if they should mention how many members each site has. I don't think it's relevant at all. This article isn't about the fan sites, it's about XM. How does listing the number of members XM411 vs XMFan has matter? In fact WP:EL suggests that one major fansite should be enough. We list 6. I would suggest we clean that up if possible, but if not, let's at least keep the links short and relevant. --Bill.matthews 22:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, right? I just cleaned up that section of external links. Cut it down to two (the big names: XM411 and XMFan) and got rid of the member count. -seinman 23:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The member count validates the usefulness of the site theirfore the usefulness of the links. XM411 had their entry deleted which described the site and gave actual numbers. Since we can't prove usefulness/relevance of the site in its own entry I suggest we validate that info here. Rrude 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
How does the number of members validate the usefulness of the site? How many members does it take before a site is useful? -- Coneslayer 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WxWorx[edit]

I would be willing to help with edits to a page on Wxworx if anyone is interested in such a thing. I have several marine units now and I can post screen shots or whatever. BUT just as a disclaimer I am a dealer for the marine weather receivers. Monkey 32606 20:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What about information about High Profile Artist DJ's?[edit]

I see that Oprah is mentioned in the context of non-traditional DJs, and lots of attention is paid to Opie and Anthony and Ron and Fez, but what about a description of Bob Dylan's original weekly program on XM: Theme Time Radio? And Tom Petty's Buried Treasure show? Huge Oversight not to include this information.

Update Subscribers Numbers[edit]

XM announced that their subscriber total is now up to 7,627,873. Right now on the page it's showing the number still at 7 million. Here's a link to Orbitcast where they have an updated graph for subscriber numbers. http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/a-look-at-sirius-xm-subscribers-in-2006.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Art10 (talkcontribs) 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Ref. 3 more about Mexico than Hawaii[edit]

(In spite of titles...)

165.154.46.240 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So? The reference is backing up a claim that XM is usable in Mexico. Whether it works in Hawai'i is not consequential, and the title has no bearing on the article content. -- Huntster T@C 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that titles having no bearing to the content is considered acceptable. Why not at least add a [bracketed phrase] to the title to clarify that it nothing to do with Hawaii. I only followed the link because I was curious about 'XM in Hawaii - Huh?'

165.154.46.8 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you not see that it was a reference to a particular topic in the article? It really isn't uncommon for references to be mainly about a completely different topic than the article, with only a particular mention somewhere in the body. Clarity isn't really the point of the reference title, only the contents therein. Hope that makes sense. -- Huntster T@C 06:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial sites[edit]

I understand that promoting the stores is not allowed in Wikipedia, but the information given by these sites may be of vaule to the end user, which is the reason this website is maintained. TravKoolBreeze 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when someone deleted the links I put in to the two forum sites. Then I realized that I found them in a few seconds with a Google search, so the links aren't really necessary. TomXP411 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'd rather have the links there than not there. Those sites are very informative: I found out a lot about XM that I didn't know before I signed up for the service; in fact, if I'd visited one of those forums before I got a SkyFi, I might have purchased a different radio instead. Both sites contain a lot of useful information, and since the two have different policies regarding what can and can't be talked about, they're both necessary. (XM411, for example, "tows the company line" when it comes to discussion about radio mods or third party software.) Rather than remove them both as spam, perhaps editors could actually look at the sites and see what they contain. TomXP411 06:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that I read WP:EL I see that the forum links are not appropriate. They should stay deleted. Please don't put them back in, Trav.TomXP411 06:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Great points, Tom. Also, here is the exact text from the "style manual": "Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)."

XMFan, one of the sites that Huntster downplays, does in fact contain reviews AND interviews. Perhaps he could check out the website before he makes uninformed comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.126.70 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of sites have reviews and interviews, Wikipedia is not here to replace Google. BJTalk 06:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. Are you related to Huntster? That was only an example of the "meaningful, relevant content." Perhaps you guys could say something meaningful and relevant yourselves, as opposed to just being smart alecks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.126.70 (talkcontribs) 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All of this is rather immaterial. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL, especially the section titled "Links normally to be avoided", and specifically numbers 10, 11, and 13. (note that 11 and 13 relate to sites run by fans.) Note also that personal attacks are to be avoided :P -- Huntster T@C 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Items 10, 11, and 13 are not relevant to that site. Please familiarize yourself with it before you comment further. Saving that, please remove yourself from the conversation. If you weren't so cocksure about things about which you know little, you wouldn't draw so many personal attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.126.70 (talkcontribs) 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are quite relevant. #10 states that message boards/forums should be avoided. #11 says that personal blogs and sites should be avoided, a category into which most fansites fall. #13 mentions that "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" should not be used, which basically also means to avoid fansites because they don't have a direct connection to the subject material (read that point and you'll see what it's talking about). I really don't know how it could be any clearer. -- Huntster T@C 07:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Then a lot of pages will have to be edited on wikipedia for this error. So a link has to be follow all thirteeen rulls to be helpful for the user? I'm sorry but I look out for the user first. Four links will not bring down the website. Also,WP:EL says links to normally be avoid, thus meaning it always applies. TravKoolBreeze 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
These guidelines were put into place to prevent editors from going nuts and placing many, many links to their favourite sites. It is simply good policy to leave it be...to allow only official websites or news articles here. As someone said above, we aren't here to replace Google. -- Huntster T@C 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Then a lot of pages will have to be edited on wikipedia for this error." That's correct, and that's why WikiProject Spam exists. Just because a policy requires tedious edits to a large number of pages does not make that policy any less important. Guidelines are in place to look out for the users as well. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I re-iterate: XMFan and XM411 are at the top of the Google list when you search for XM Forum. They also both show up in the first page when you search for variants on the topic. Personally, I'd rather see the links there, but according to the guidelines, they shouldn't be. So let's just let it rest, before this page gets locked. -TomXP411 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

XM411 and XMFan[edit]

So far, I've seen these sites added and deleted 3 times in the last few days.

They are definitely useful sites, however they're being deleted under WP:EL, specifically Links to be avoided, #10 - forums. We need to build a consensus on this, before someone slaps a protect on this page. I'm back and forth myself on the issue: I tend to mostly use the forums on both sites, so I think of them mostly as a forum. However, there is a lot of useful information there, as well. I've discovered things there that I never would have found out through official channels. For example, I discovered the PCR and the XM Direct there: In fact, I'm using an XM direct now, and with a homebrew cable and sofware I've created, I record news, talk shows, and radio dramas to listen to on my time schedule.

I'm proposing that we decide whether to Keep the links to XMFan and XM411, based on the fact that they're useful, or that we Delete, based on WP:EL. We should post a comment in the page to let future people know what's going on and prevent further edit wars. I'll start -TomXP411 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. These links are being deleted per #10, 11, and 13, which, as stated above, covers everything from forums to unofficial websites. Per these points, the links are being removed. -- Huntster T@C 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If we can settle this once and for all, perhaps we can end the edit wars. Otherwise, you'll be in here every 3 days deleting links that someone else will re-create 2 days later. I didn't start this to keep the links. I started this to settle the issue. I don't agree that 10 applies, since the site is not just a forum. I also don't see that those are blogs, since a blog is usually a personal journal, not a public news page (although some people use blog software to publish news). Re 13, you could argue that the page is not symetrically related, meaning that while these sites point to XM.com, XM.com doesn't link to those sites. However, What Should Be linked #3 and 4 both apply. In fact, since XM's own web site is pretty limited in terms of real information (in fact, a lot of things have dissapeared from the official site, such as drivers and software for the PCR), the only place to get info on some of these things, like the PCR or the XM Direct, is through unofficial sites. Would you deny useful information on the basis if it being a "fan" site, or leave the links in on the weight of their meaningful and relevant content? -TomXP411 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually, I would deny these things because we aren't here to replace Google. Not to mention, isn't the whole PCR thing less-than-legal (considering the 3rd party vendors were receiving cease-and-desist letters?). We shouldn't be acting as an agent to subverting legitiment business. Also, "What to link" #3 don't really apply, since XM targeted fansites cannot be considered neutral. I really don't think 4 necessarily applies either, but I'm going to leave that one alone. The primary problem is, as stated above, how can one fansite be considered valuable enough for inclusion, yet another one isn't? The best policy is to remove all fansites to keep things more fair. -- Huntster T@C 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, this isn't Google. But what's the point of a links section if not to give more information about something? The "official" information about XM is sorely lacking and doesn't cover much in terms of what real people think. If someone was considering buying an XM receiver, I'd hate to point them to the XM web site and say "here you go". They need more research than that. As to the PCR: The PCR is a product that can still be purchased secondhand, and there is nothing illegal about software that replaces the control software included with the PCR (nothing in copyright law precludes one from writing their own drivers for a piece of hardware). The only questionable action was distributing recording capable software, such as TimeTrax. Those aren't the only two XM fan sites, but they're the biggest and most complete. Just about any search for a topic involving XM radio turns up one or both of those sites.
  • Keep: XMFan and XM411 both provide news and useful information that doesn't come to light through the official company page, such as hardware reviews, news, and installation tips. -TomXP411 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove: Arguments are all stated above. -- Huntster T@C 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Despite their forum format, they are the main "fan" sites of XM Radio... Just like a major fan site of a band would be listed. The sites provide information that is not available on the official site. -newkai t-c 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Playing Devil's advocate: can you point to some bands where the fan sites are listed AND there has been discussion on whether or not to keep the site? I'd like to see the policies used in making that decision. Thanks. :) -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Tom. I should also point out that just because another article does something, it doesn't automatically make it correct ;) I have posted something about this on the Village Pump asking for outside advice (link), so hopefully someone will respond. -- Huntster T@C 08:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Last comment was 3 days ago. John Broughton made a good point over on the Village Pump. Any more opinions? I still think those are both good "more reading" sites, considering the fact that the company site is pretty horrible. However, I'd rather let it go than fight over it. Whatever we do, I'd like to see a comment in the external links about this, so you don't have to revert edits every other day. -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a note in the section is that very few people will listen to it. It's been tried elsewhere, and people simply remove it and add whatever they want. The only thing that works is diligent patrolling. Personally, I fully believe in the "NOT a directory" ideal, that only "official" sites should be included as a jumping off point. -- Huntster T@C 09:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the partially protected status has at least stopped the vandalism. Seeing as both sites are easily discoverble with Google, I think we've hashed this out about as far as it's going to go. -- TomXP411[Talk] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger Talk[edit]

While reports from ABC News ans the NY Post has said there is a merger, neither company has officially stated it. This should be mentioned as reports has the tendency of falling a part. TravKoolBreeze 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I say that, a press release from XM is issued. TravKoolBreeze 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Good catch, I just noticed a blurb about this on TV a few minutes ago. I had thought the FCC declined the possibility of a merger...interesting. -- Huntster T@C 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it. I have like 5 XM Radios around, and now they're going to merge with Sirius. This brings up the question that we'll ALL have: What happens to existing hardware? Does it become obsolete? Do new hybrid receivers emerge? Will XM and Sirius satellites echo the same programming, with the hardware limitation of 255 channels, or will there be new receivers that can receive the full channel complement of both satellites? Will some of the channels from both services be cut, increasing the bandwidth (and therefore the audio quality) of the remaining channels?

As the merger matures, do you think we should create an XM/Sirius (Xirius?) merger article? I'm thinking that the same news will apply to BOTH articles: XM and Sirius Radio, so it'd be nice to have one article with the combined data of both services.

Or is Wikipedia Not a Newspaper, so that tracking this stuff is inapropriate? -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hardly say the merger discussions qualify for being called a "buyout" so I removed those words. More so nothing has been confirmed and that whole section is merely speculation.

Patrickmacdonald 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Press release on XM's web site: http://xmradio.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1423

Created a new article. Please go add info there as its available. I think people will be asking these questions (at least, these are the two most common questions on the forums)

  • what about our hardware? address any announcements about hardware changes, including a universal receiver
  • what about my favorite station? when info comes available about stations, let's build a post-merger station list

-- TomXP411[Talk] 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Official documents claim it is a merger. XM corporation and branding will be KEPT. http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4980805&Type=HTML

70.64.50.221 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a treatment of the bandwidth allocation scheme[edit]

I added a detailed treatment of the bandwidth allocation scheme using information from patent number 7075946. --KJRehberg 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please someone add what XM radio is[edit]

What XM radio is is the experience of listening to it, of having the 120 channels to listen to.

It appears to me that the contributors to the article so far felt that everything about XM radio was important to include, except what it is.

If anyone happens to subscribe to this service and would like to describe what it is -- so that someone reading the article will actually have some idea of what the article is about -- I am sure that future readers of the article will be immeasurably grateful.

It's so much more fun to know what an article is about than to read megabytes of information without a clue to what the information applies to.Daqu 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That type of description is rather subjective. While I agree that there's no point in getting satellite radio if not for the quality and quantity of material, this article aims to describe not only the service itself but the company behind the name and all appropriate aspects of the brand name. Just boiling it all down to "XM is what it is due to the experience of listening to it" simply doesn't cut it. -- Huntster T@C 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV mandates that WE NOT described "what it is" via some subjective listener experiential description. David Spalding (  ) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I never intended the description I requested to be subjective. But if you don't think that an encyclopedia article should describe its topic, then you and I must have totally different concepts of what an encyclopedia is.Daqu 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
How on earth does the article not describe what the subject is about? I'm completely failing to see this. -- Huntster T@C 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect on channels by merger with Sirius?[edit]

Probably not relevant for the article, but I'm SOOOOO happy to hear Sirius and XM will merge. I just bought an Acura which has an XM-compat radio. My Yamaha home receiver is XM-ready. I never subscribed as I really, really want NPR. Has anyone found reliable sources of info on the proposed effect on channel lineup that the merger proposes? TIA, David Spalding (  ) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen nothing regarding proposed lineups, but the company chiefs are promising that content will be combined into a unique lineup (link), though apparently a possibility exists for both systems being playable on existing radios (link), though this is dependent on a theoretical firmware update. I'd guess it'll be several more months before such lineup information becomes available, and even then, probably would not be wise to include it here until firm data exists. -- Huntster T@C 22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

XM-Sirus Merger[edit]

The PR reference is of feb. 07, not Dec. 07 to 08... i think it may be outdated, can anyone update this possiable FCC leagal debacle confermation for merger? -67.160.127.140 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See reply at Talk:Sirius Satellite Radio#XM-Sirus Merger. -- Huntster T@C 12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"too long" tag[edit]

I removed the tag that had been added regarding length of this article as the readable prose is 22K - well with guidelines. See WP:SIZE. I see no discussion here of the article's size. Tvoz/talk 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Customer Service[edit]

This description of customer care is debatable, equally positive ratings could be sourced, and serves no purpose but to disparage XM and should be removed.Sresendez (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)sresendez

As I thought I (or someone else) told you ten days ago, you are welcome to locate such material--carefully applying the standards of WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:RS--and propose it be added to the article. Thank you, BTW, for not attempting to delete material with which you disagree, as you did a while back! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you were correct about the sourcing of this information, I have re-written the section and re-posted it.

I'm disappointed you didn't mention the sourcing issue to me before you hoisted it up the flagpole. Regardless, that's certainly your prerogative. I caution you, though, that you really need to get in the habit of talking to other editors, which involves more than just repeating the same argument, over and over again.

As I've mentioned before--and in other places--I encourage you to post properly cited information to the article that refutes the complaints. That's what makes the article better. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Map your territory[edit]

Is it possible to map your coverage for subscribers, as I have traveled several places here in the U.S. and find that coverage is weak or non existent. I recently went to Aruba and thought I could get coverage there as well, but no luck. Just map your coverage as changes happen from weak to strong, and in the U.S. if that is the only broadcasting you offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpowestphilly (talkcontribs) 15:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How to edit the price increase since 2011[edit]

"Monthly packages start at US$12.95/month with add-on "family" radios at US$8.99/month."

The price has increased to US$14.49/month for basic in 2011[1]. As the article was outdated, I was wondering if I should replace the misguiding price with the correct one, or keep the old price and write a sentence with the new price.


Rohin12345 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on XM Satellite Radio. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on XM Satellite Radio. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Past tense?[edit]

A lot of the article is written in past tense. Ex: “The XM radio signal was broadcast on 6 separate radio carriers within the 12.5 MHz allocation”, and “The entire content of the radio service, including both data and audio content, was represented by only two carriers.”

To the best of my knowledge, XM and Sirius still broadcast separate systems. Shouldn't all of the discussion about broadcasting, therefore be in the present tense? Mike Richardson (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I totally second this. I just looked up the article for information and the use of the past tense was very misleading. It should be fixed by rewriting it using present tense. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)