Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kovachs who wrote (5273)	10/5/2006 1:53:32 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8420

This is what is so tiring about going round and round on these issues with you. ¿¿¿¿¿¿ I don't understand what you find to be so tiring?? I mean.. This is the first time we have every approached the "technology" aspect of these systems. Now, I have spoken many times to your "bunky" David Ray.. But, this is the first time that we have spoken about this issue.. So I don't understand what you find so tiring... Unless of course, we have spoken about these issues before, and you were using a differnt "moniker"?? One of the primary reasons for this is that their three satellite tundra orbit requires much more processing of the single than XM's two satellite system. Well, first of all.. It's called a Molynia orbit which is a highly elyptical orbit. Second of all.. The use of the Molynia Orbit has several cost advantages to the operator. One of that being a higher overall signal level at the higher latitudes than that of a GSO based system. This Molynia orbit can allow SIRI to operate with fewer terrestrial repeaters than that of a GSO based system. So the higher average signal level from the space segment actually decreases the amount of processing or "soft handoff" between the satellites and the terrestrial repeaters. Heck, even your posts the other day stated this: So as you look at our SAC guidance for the year of $110, what you can safely assume is that the SAC associated with our retail products is substantially less than $110 and the SAC associated with our OEM products is higher. " Message 22842735 So if the manufacturing costs were so much larger as you suggested, as defined by the technology issues, then those SAC costs would be much HIGHER. But, your "bunk mate" keeps posting his SIRI self-calculated CPGA numbers in the $200 dollar range. So I am not going to argue that SIRI manufacturing costs may be higher, but that doesn't make up the difference in the apparent delta in the CPGA figures. Especially, since you think that Retail CPGA is lower then OEM. Which just doesn't jive with the numbers presented in the SEC statements. Now if Retail CPGA was higher than OEM.. Then the numbers would make perfect sense. PCSTEL