You mean this one??
""This investment in next generation space technology will improve SIRIUS' already exceptional service experience," said Mel Karmazin, CEO of SIRIUS. "Not only will this satellite support our other three satellites currently in orbit, but it will also improve reception for all SIRIUS subscribers whether they are in their car, office, home or jogging in the park."
Yes, genius. You can hardly expect Mel to say, "Our reception sucks so we're launching another satellite in 2008".
But if you go read the Sirius fanboards, it is pretty clear that reception issues are significant and more widespread than first believed. While XM has occasional complaints, they are simply not even close in sheer numbers (in spite of XM having more subscribers) nor in severity.
In particular, Sirius is unable to deliver consistent reception within homes (often requiring an outdoor antenna to resolve, if it can be resolved at all) and the new "wearable" is virtually unusable without the external antenna, worse even than XM's first generation portables.
???? Let me see here.. SIRI has launched SIRI-1, SIRI-2, and SIRI-3...
XM has launched XM-Rock, XM-Roll, and XM-3???
Maybe I am having basic math problems here..
But, on my calculator.. That's 3 each that have been launched??
Not math problems, but perhaps an absence of common sense. Let's keep in mind that XM has been fairly compensated by insurance for the premature failure of two satellites; they are NOT being replaced because of a bad engineering decision on XM's part. Your claim that Sirius chose a "better" or more "cost-effective" satellite constellation reflects total and absolute ignorance of the subject matter.
Once again, you're trying to change the subject because you have been shown to not have a clue what you're talking about. |
