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: i-node who wrote (5387)	10/22/2006 11:42:45 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

Wrong. Sirius's original planning called for about 133 repeaters. They are now more than twice that and counting. ???? Are you sure you have any idea what you are going on about??? Here is what the Most Recent 10-Q has to say.. We broadcast through our proprietary satellite radio system, which currently consists of three orbiting satellites, 139 terrestrial repeaters that receive and retransmit our signal, But, I guess if YOU SAY that the number is actually double that amount.. Then of course we should forget what the SEC statements have to say, and believe what you say... After all... You're the expert... LOL!! XM's original plan called for nearly 2000; they have reduced that number to well under half that figure. So if XM's original plan was for 2000 and SIRI's original plan was for about 133. Then that pretty much proves my point, and verifies the FCC's position. After all, Expenses for building and operating 133 repeaters would be a fraction of the expenses than that for 2000. This isn't about the terrestrial repeaters. The entire idea of the Molynia orbit, you claimed, was about saving money and better reception. To date, it has delivered NEITHER for Sirius as had in fact been the CAUSE of major reception issues from fixed locations. Look, I hate to tell you this.. But, generally, reception inside buildings and other fixed areas is done via the terrestrial network, not the space segment. Now, if you want to claim that XM has better reception in those areas vs. SIRI due to their more robust terrestrial network, necessary due to the lower look angles of the GEO satellites. Then I would agree with your viewpoint. But, to blame poor indoor reception on the space segment highlights your lack of knowledge on this subject. There has never been a report of "degraded reception" from Xm's satellites in an SEC statement or anywhere else. In February 2005, the Company launched XM-3. XM-3 was placed into one of the Company’s orbital slots and beginning in April 2005 is being used to transmit the XM service. During the second quarter of 2005, the Company collocated XM-1 with XM-2 in the other orbital slot. LOL!! They replaced one satellite and have another one they are getting ready to lauch to replace the other one. But, the problems were so bad, that they had to move the one satellite over to the other satellites orbital location so they could use it in case the other one totally died before the other one XM-4 can get launched.. I don't see SIRI launching satellites to replace ones, only to augment their existing Loral built system.. Hint... You will notice that XM finally figured out theiir mistake using the Boeing buss, and have since made the correct choice and are using Loral for XM-5... A very expensive mistake on the part of XM in the first place. Now while it is true that XM was compensated by the insurance companies for the complete disaster that the Hughes 702 cans were.. XM didn't get compensated for the several hundred million dollars in lauch costs associated with those cans.