Will satellites kill local radio? I hope so
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.
One final note: In Monday's column, I quoted columnist Mark Kellner to the effect that OpenOffice, the open-source version of Sun's StarOffice, did not have a spelling checker. I've since been informed by Mr. Kellner (and a large number of readers) that his statement was in error, and that OpenOffice does indeed have spelling checkers, for multiple languages. Mark regrets the error, and I regret repeating it.
What do you think? Are you interested in satellite radio? Why? What would satellite services offer that you can't get from regular radio? TalkBack to me below.