[ZDNet] Will satellites kill local radio? I hope so

[Adam L. Beberg]

This is of course, the CORRECT way to do radio. One bird in geosync orbit.
60 channels of nonstop music, giving them an approximate bandwidth of 16,000
songs per day in a very wide variety of types. 6 jazz stations! This is not
your local all-Britney crap. And it's digital, and the car makers support
it. Oh and then you have talk stations to boot.

Beat that.

- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
  http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
  beberg@mithral.com

-----------------------------------------------------

Will satellites kill local radio? I hope so
By David Coursey
AnchorDesk
June 20, 2002, 4:20 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-937771.html

COMMENTARY--You've no doubt heard about XM Satellite Radio, the venture
that beams 100-plus radio channels to special car and home receivers. As you
may have also heard, XM's getting some competition: Sirius Satellite Radio
is in the midst of its own nationwide rollout.

The appearance of competition in the young satellite radio market raises two
questions: Are either of these services worth the money and the trouble of
installation? After all, a receiver for either XM or Sirius will set you
back $300 or more, with monthly fees running around $10 to $13. More
importantly, will there be any meaningful difference between the two?


RIGHT UP FRONT, let me mention a conflict of interest: Along with the rest
of CNET Radio, my daily radio program is broadcast on XM Channel 130. So I
can't in good conscience make a specific recommendation as to which service
you should choose. I can, however, point out what seem to be the big
differences.

I've got an XM receiver, which I recently loaned to a friend. He offered to
road test it for me, even to the point of paying XM the $9.99 monthly
programming fee.

This particular receiver is from Sony. It's available either with an adapter
that allows the receiver to play through your car's cassette deck or with a
modulator that allows the satellite receiver to be tuned using a
conventional FM radio.

Neither the adapter nor the modulator works as well as an integrated
AM/FM/satellite receiver: Both have frequency limitations that limit the
sound quality. Don't get me wrong: The adapter and modulator options both
sound fine (to my less-than-audiophile-quality ears, anyway), but if you
have the option of an integrated AM/FM/satellite receiver, take it.

ONE OTHER HARDWARE ISSUE: The two services differ in how they address the
problem of urban reception. Tall buildings and other structures make it
harder to pick up the satellite signals. Both services use terrestrial
repeaters--essentially ground relay stations--to boost reception in urban
and other "dark spots." Sirius has about 100 of these repeaters installed
throughout the U.S., XM about 1,000. But Sirius argues that it has the
technology to overcome that disparity. It's still too early to do any
definitive testing, but it's something to keep an eye on.

There aren't yet (and may not be anytime soon) any receivers capable of
tuning in both XM and Sirius. The service you pick will determine your
hardware. And your choice of service will depend largely on which channels
you want.

XM and Sirius offer about 100 channels each. Sirius offers 60 channels of
commercial-free music and 40 other channels, mainly talk, that play
commercials. XM offers about the same number of channels, most of which have
what the company calls "limited" commercial spots.

(The difference in monthly fees--$9.99 for XM vs. $12.95 for Sirius--would
seem to reflect roughly the difference in each company's reliance on ad
revenues.)

At a glance, both services seem to offer the same types of programming, with
almost all of what one service offers also available on the other: greatest
hits of the [fill in the decade], the various rock genres (alt, modern,
classic), every conceivable form of pop, a smattering of jazz and classical.
If you really care about a particular category (news and talk, for me), then
take a look at XM's and Sirius's programming lists and find out which has
what you want.

EVEN IF YOU DON'T want all-bluegrass-all-the-time or the Frank Sinatra
festival, the satellite services' programming doesn't overlap nearly as much
as commercial radio stations, half of which at any given moment seem to be
playing a selection from the same three-song playlist.

Both services are counting on the same thing: Local AM/FM radio options
pretty much suck. There are lots of reasons for this, most of which come
down to greedy broadcasters acting solely in their own short-term interests,
and the government's unwillingness to require programming diversity from
companies that plunder our publicly-owned airwaves. But I digress...

The satellite services have three big cards in their hand: Digital quality
music (assuming you get the right hardware), nationwide service, and a wide
diversity of programming.

THAT LAST BIT is what makes me a supporter of both services. But I suspect
that only one of them will survive long-term. It's hard to tell which one.
Alliances with automakers--which both have--are likely to play a large role
in overall success or failure. But it's a pattern we've seen before, in
satellite television, when DirecTV swallowed a service called USSB and now
could itself be swallowed by EchoStar/Dish Network.

It's an ongoing story. The friend I lent my Sony receiver to has been
satisfied with the XM system. I'm looking forward to checking out a Sirius
receiver when one arrives. We'll install them side-by-side and do a
technical comparison, which I expect to run sometime next month.

Yes, I know it seems like a waste of money to pay for radio you will only
listen to in the car--unless you're a trucker or have a really long daily
commute. For people who feel this way, I recommend receivers like the Sony,
which can easily move from car to home (and back again) several times a day
if you like. You'll need to install the special antenna at home, which may
be a challenge. But you'll certainly get more programming for your money.