This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sirius XM article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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 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]
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)
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.
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
This point is no longer valid as this student group is filing arguments in Federal courts. -- Stilleon ( talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
More stuff:
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.
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)
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)
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?
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.
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 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.
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)
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)
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?
I appreciate everyone's enthusiasim with wikinews here, but ther's a few things.
Bawolff 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 00:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Sirius XM Holdings → Sirius XM Satellite Radio – The service is mostly known by its full name, not its corporate name. JE98 ( talk) 22:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Page history of Sirius XM Satellite Radio:
20:21, 27 July 2014 Wosch21149 (talk | contribs | block) . . (32 bytes) (+3) . . (Target page moved) 20:39, 29 July 2008 Huntster (talk | contribs | block) m . . (29 bytes) (+6) . . (fix link.) 16:54, 29 July 2008 Stickguy (talk | contribs | block) . . (23 bytes) (+23) . . (moved Sirius XM Satellite Radio to Sirius XM: since we can't move to "Sirius XM Radio" at the moment, this will do as a compromise)
And of the talk page:
23:25, 27 July 2014 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m . . (37 bytes) (+3) . . (Bot: Fixing double redirect to Talk:Sirius XM Holdings) 20:41, 29 July 2008 Redirect fixer (talk | contribs | block) . . (34 bytes) (+6) . . (Talk:Sirius XM has been moved; it now redirects to Talk:Sirius XM Radio.) 16:54, 29 July 2008 Stickguy (talk | contribs | block) . . (28 bytes) (+28) . . (moved Talk:Sirius XM Satellite Radio to Talk:Sirius XM: since we can't move to "Sirius XM Radio" at the moment, this will do as a compromise)
I think this is worth preserving so I do so here. Andrewa ( talk) 00:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe the custom stations feature was discontinued last year. The Mo-Ja'al ( talk) 06:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Sirius XM". ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Sirius XM Satellite Radio →
SiriusXM – Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NATURAL. 'Nuff said. (Note: this may be my most concise rationale, eh,
Bradv?)
Doug Mehus (
talk) 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It was formed by the 2008 merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, merging them into SiriusXM Radio. ... At the end of 2013, Sirius XM reorganized their corporate structure, which made Sirius XM Radio Inc. a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Sirius XM Holdings, Inc.
So if "SiriusXM Radio" is not merely a short form for "Sirius XM Radio Inc.", just what is it then? A registered trademark? A brand? A channel? A conventional stylization of their official corporation name with no formal status? Used in their own literature, or merely used by everyone else?
This is why people consult Wikipedia:
Why does Sirius XM have crappy music nowadays on its stations except for the stations 6 7 and 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.11.93 ( talk) 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Talk section here needs cleaning up especialy from talk going back to 2008 including satellite repeaters. Newb787 ( talk) 10:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sirius XM article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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 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]
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)
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.
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
This point is no longer valid as this student group is filing arguments in Federal courts. -- Stilleon ( talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
More stuff:
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.
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)
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)
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?
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.
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 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.
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)
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)
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?
I appreciate everyone's enthusiasim with wikinews here, but ther's a few things.
Bawolff 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 00:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Sirius XM Holdings → Sirius XM Satellite Radio – The service is mostly known by its full name, not its corporate name. JE98 ( talk) 22:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Page history of Sirius XM Satellite Radio:
20:21, 27 July 2014 Wosch21149 (talk | contribs | block) . . (32 bytes) (+3) . . (Target page moved) 20:39, 29 July 2008 Huntster (talk | contribs | block) m . . (29 bytes) (+6) . . (fix link.) 16:54, 29 July 2008 Stickguy (talk | contribs | block) . . (23 bytes) (+23) . . (moved Sirius XM Satellite Radio to Sirius XM: since we can't move to "Sirius XM Radio" at the moment, this will do as a compromise)
And of the talk page:
23:25, 27 July 2014 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m . . (37 bytes) (+3) . . (Bot: Fixing double redirect to Talk:Sirius XM Holdings) 20:41, 29 July 2008 Redirect fixer (talk | contribs | block) . . (34 bytes) (+6) . . (Talk:Sirius XM has been moved; it now redirects to Talk:Sirius XM Radio.) 16:54, 29 July 2008 Stickguy (talk | contribs | block) . . (28 bytes) (+28) . . (moved Talk:Sirius XM Satellite Radio to Talk:Sirius XM: since we can't move to "Sirius XM Radio" at the moment, this will do as a compromise)
I think this is worth preserving so I do so here. Andrewa ( talk) 00:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe the custom stations feature was discontinued last year. The Mo-Ja'al ( talk) 06:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Sirius XM". ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Sirius XM Satellite Radio →
SiriusXM – Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NATURAL. 'Nuff said. (Note: this may be my most concise rationale, eh,
Bradv?)
Doug Mehus (
talk) 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It was formed by the 2008 merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, merging them into SiriusXM Radio. ... At the end of 2013, Sirius XM reorganized their corporate structure, which made Sirius XM Radio Inc. a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Sirius XM Holdings, Inc.
So if "SiriusXM Radio" is not merely a short form for "Sirius XM Radio Inc.", just what is it then? A registered trademark? A brand? A channel? A conventional stylization of their official corporation name with no formal status? Used in their own literature, or merely used by everyone else?
This is why people consult Wikipedia:
Why does Sirius XM have crappy music nowadays on its stations except for the stations 6 7 and 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.11.93 ( talk) 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Talk section here needs cleaning up especialy from talk going back to 2008 including satellite repeaters. Newb787 ( talk) 10:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)