-
-
- Kinga_Philipps
- added this
- added August 01, 2008
- flag
-
Can you say "monopoly"?
-
-
- fourtwenty_star
- 5 months ago
-
-
Originally in the 1990's XM and Sirius did not intend to develop a compatible receiver technology capable of combining the two services. However, in 2003, XM & Sirius created a joint venture called Interoperable Technologies. The goal of this joint venture was to create a unified receiver, having the ability to broadcast both XM & Sirius stations. Although both companies plan to keep existing services intact for current subscribers, they also plan to offer a new brand of service utilizing the newer receiver technology to offer a broader spectrum of channel choices.
My opinion, they should call the new service Siriusly XM
-
-
- EddieStarr
- 5 months ago
-
-
o and a party rock.
-
-
- Chango2000
- 5 months ago
-
-
It's about friggin time! Hopefully now my Sirius stock will finally be worth something.
-
-
- Scott_Bromley
- 5 months ago
-
-
There is something about competition that used to keep companies honest to the consumer... while I am a huge fan of my XM radio, I feel no good can come of this-
What happened when the little cable companies were all bought up by Time/Warner/Comcast? Did the services and products get better, or just more costly with far less accountability to the consumer?
-
Both satellite companies have lost millions of dollars due to high overhead. The only way to survive was for them to merge. There is so much product choice and competition out there for mobile entertainment and music, i.e. free advertised-based radio, Ipods, CDs, MP3, etc. customers can be assured of accountability for great service and content or customers will just leave satellite and choose the other options mentioned above. That's why this debate over the merger was so ridiculous. No one needs satellite for their mobile entertainment, there are so many options.
