Just wanted to know how many "closet" sat. radio listeners their are...XM or Sirius, I tend to listen to Sirius about 90% of the time, then I switch back and forth on the FM dial for local updates and stuff, but, I sure hate commercials now that I have sat. radio. your feelings??? and think nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last, HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps ship.......
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
How many FM radio folks listen to sat.radio???
- Thread starter only1deejayman
- Start date
K
KMRichards
Guest
Not quite, my friend.
> and think
> nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last,
> HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps
> ship.......
Okay, let's repeat the statistics one more time.
XM and Sirius, combined, nationwide, have fewer subscribers than the number of listeners to the #1 station in New York City. This is based on XM and Sirius' own numbers compared to Arbitron numbers.
It is going to take a <u>very long time</u> for satellite radio to catch up to terrestrial radio. The only reason it is ripe for discussion here is that we are comprised of non-typical radio listeners and broadcast professionals. We are in no way indicative of the U.S. radio-listening population as a whole.
Even adding <u>every single Howard Stern listener, nationwide,</u> to Sirius will not raise their subscriber total beyond the total number of radio listeners (to all stations) in the New York City market. (And there is no guarantee that all of his listeners will go satellite.)
Satellite radio is nowhere near a "HAH!!!!" in impact. And while it is surviving, it is also losing money (again, based on their own figures).
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> and think
> nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last,
> HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps
> ship.......
Okay, let's repeat the statistics one more time.
XM and Sirius, combined, nationwide, have fewer subscribers than the number of listeners to the #1 station in New York City. This is based on XM and Sirius' own numbers compared to Arbitron numbers.
It is going to take a <u>very long time</u> for satellite radio to catch up to terrestrial radio. The only reason it is ripe for discussion here is that we are comprised of non-typical radio listeners and broadcast professionals. We are in no way indicative of the U.S. radio-listening population as a whole.
Even adding <u>every single Howard Stern listener, nationwide,</u> to Sirius will not raise their subscriber total beyond the total number of radio listeners (to all stations) in the New York City market. (And there is no guarantee that all of his listeners will go satellite.)
Satellite radio is nowhere near a "HAH!!!!" in impact. And while it is surviving, it is also losing money (again, based on their own figures).
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Not quite, my friend.
> > and think
> > nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last,
> > HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps
> > ship.......
>
> Okay, let's repeat the statistics one more time.
>
> XM and Sirius, combined, nationwide, have fewer subscribers
> than the number of listeners to the #1 station in New York
> City. This is based on XM and Sirius' own numbers compared
> to Arbitron numbers.
>
> It is going to take a very long time for satellite radio to
> catch up to terrestrial radio. The only reason it is ripe
> for discussion here is that we are comprised of non-typical
> radio listeners and broadcast professionals. We are in no
> way indicative of the U.S. radio-listening population as a
> whole.
>
> Even adding every single Howard Stern listener, nationwide,
> to Sirius will not raise their subscriber total beyond the
> total number of radio listeners (to all stations) in the New
> York City market. (And there is no guarantee that all of
> his listeners will go satellite.)
>
> Satellite radio is nowhere near a "HAH!!!!" in impact. And
> while it is surviving, it is also losing money (again, based
> on their own figures).
>
Let's see, FM eroded AM, cable TV eroded broadcast TV, and then satellite eroded cable, and the DVD eroded VHS, and cassette eroded 8-track, and cell phones are eroding land line.
There are several technologies nibbling away at broadcast radio, and while no one may be that significant now, collectively broadcast radio as we know it is it serious trouble ten years down the road.
> > and think
> > nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last,
> > HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps
> > ship.......
>
> Okay, let's repeat the statistics one more time.
>
> XM and Sirius, combined, nationwide, have fewer subscribers
> than the number of listeners to the #1 station in New York
> City. This is based on XM and Sirius' own numbers compared
> to Arbitron numbers.
>
> It is going to take a very long time for satellite radio to
> catch up to terrestrial radio. The only reason it is ripe
> for discussion here is that we are comprised of non-typical
> radio listeners and broadcast professionals. We are in no
> way indicative of the U.S. radio-listening population as a
> whole.
>
> Even adding every single Howard Stern listener, nationwide,
> to Sirius will not raise their subscriber total beyond the
> total number of radio listeners (to all stations) in the New
> York City market. (And there is no guarantee that all of
> his listeners will go satellite.)
>
> Satellite radio is nowhere near a "HAH!!!!" in impact. And
> while it is surviving, it is also losing money (again, based
> on their own figures).
>
Let's see, FM eroded AM, cable TV eroded broadcast TV, and then satellite eroded cable, and the DVD eroded VHS, and cassette eroded 8-track, and cell phones are eroding land line.
There are several technologies nibbling away at broadcast radio, and while no one may be that significant now, collectively broadcast radio as we know it is it serious trouble ten years down the road.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Not quite, my friend.
> Let's see, FM eroded AM, cable TV eroded broadcast TV, and
> then satellite eroded cable, and the DVD eroded VHS, and
> cassette eroded 8-track, and cell phones are eroding land
> line.
>
> There are several technologies nibbling away at broadcast
> radio, and while no one may be that significant now,
> collectively broadcast radio as we know it is it serious
> trouble ten years down the road.
The operative words in what you said are "several" and "nibbling". That contradicts the examples you gave previously, where one dominant technology eroded another.
Therefore, at this point -- deriving a conclusion based on your statement -- no single technology has the dominance to do to broadcast radio what the other examples did.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Let's see, FM eroded AM, cable TV eroded broadcast TV, and
> then satellite eroded cable, and the DVD eroded VHS, and
> cassette eroded 8-track, and cell phones are eroding land
> line.
>
> There are several technologies nibbling away at broadcast
> radio, and while no one may be that significant now,
> collectively broadcast radio as we know it is it serious
> trouble ten years down the road.
The operative words in what you said are "several" and "nibbling". That contradicts the examples you gave previously, where one dominant technology eroded another.
Therefore, at this point -- deriving a conclusion based on your statement -- no single technology has the dominance to do to broadcast radio what the other examples did.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
K
k9ez
Guest
> Just wanted to know how many "closet" sat. radio listeners
> their are...XM or Sirius, I tend to listen to Sirius about
> 90% of the time, then I switch back and forth on the FM dial
> for local updates and stuff, but, I sure hate commercials
> now that I have sat. radio. your feelings??? and think
> nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last,
> HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps
> ship.......
>
Actually I saw a "poll" asking Stern listeners how mant would move over to Sirus. The response was luke warm at best.
I will look for that link. I dont have it at my fingertips right now.
Personally I think the Stern deal will be the death of Sirus.
Sooo to Howard...JUMP!!!! JUMP!!!!
> their are...XM or Sirius, I tend to listen to Sirius about
> 90% of the time, then I switch back and forth on the FM dial
> for local updates and stuff, but, I sure hate commercials
> now that I have sat. radio. your feelings??? and think
> nobody in the radio biz thought sat. radio would last,
> HAH!!!! I bet their will be tons more once Howard jumps
> ship.......
>
Actually I saw a "poll" asking Stern listeners how mant would move over to Sirus. The response was luke warm at best.
I will look for that link. I dont have it at my fingertips right now.
Personally I think the Stern deal will be the death of Sirus.
Sooo to Howard...JUMP!!!! JUMP!!!!
Re: Not quite, my friend.
>
> The operative words in what you said are "several" and
> "nibbling". That contradicts the examples you gave
> previously, where one dominant technology eroded another.
>
> Therefore, at this point -- deriving a conclusion based on
> your statement -- no single technology has the dominance to
> do to broadcast radio what the other examples did.
>
Well, OK, but the point is broadcast radio's audience will continue to erode at an initially small but increasingly rapid pace from a variety of fronts.
When satellite radios becomes standard equipment in mid and higher priced new cars, as CD players quickly did, and when satellite radio providers become as aggressive in marketing as Dish Network and DirecTV became, the complexion will change. Once satellite ready cars reach a critical mass, the marketing money will flow. My guess two to five years out.
The cable industry thought small dish satellite TV would replace "big dish" users, but has taken nearly 25% of their subscribers away.
Watch for "free" hardware, and several months free service in the near future. As an early satellite TV adopter, I paid $600 for ONE reciever, now you get four recievers and a DVD player free with a year's service commitment.
Radio broadcasters are naive if they think satellite radio is a temporary pest, in fact it is a sleeping giant, along with WiMax will erode broadcast station audiences, revenue, and values significantly over the next ten years. Watch.
And IBOC is too little too late. Local radio could offer a lot, but with the exception of the big 50,000 watt news/talk stations, they are as local as the local Burger King.
The up side is this. Satellite TV forced cable operaters to upgrade their infrastucture, services, and reliability. One only hopes GOOD local radio makes a comeback. JACK ain't it......
>
> The operative words in what you said are "several" and
> "nibbling". That contradicts the examples you gave
> previously, where one dominant technology eroded another.
>
> Therefore, at this point -- deriving a conclusion based on
> your statement -- no single technology has the dominance to
> do to broadcast radio what the other examples did.
>
Well, OK, but the point is broadcast radio's audience will continue to erode at an initially small but increasingly rapid pace from a variety of fronts.
When satellite radios becomes standard equipment in mid and higher priced new cars, as CD players quickly did, and when satellite radio providers become as aggressive in marketing as Dish Network and DirecTV became, the complexion will change. Once satellite ready cars reach a critical mass, the marketing money will flow. My guess two to five years out.
The cable industry thought small dish satellite TV would replace "big dish" users, but has taken nearly 25% of their subscribers away.
Watch for "free" hardware, and several months free service in the near future. As an early satellite TV adopter, I paid $600 for ONE reciever, now you get four recievers and a DVD player free with a year's service commitment.
Radio broadcasters are naive if they think satellite radio is a temporary pest, in fact it is a sleeping giant, along with WiMax will erode broadcast station audiences, revenue, and values significantly over the next ten years. Watch.
And IBOC is too little too late. Local radio could offer a lot, but with the exception of the big 50,000 watt news/talk stations, they are as local as the local Burger King.
The up side is this. Satellite TV forced cable operaters to upgrade their infrastucture, services, and reliability. One only hopes GOOD local radio makes a comeback. JACK ain't it......
Re: Not quite, my friend.
Satellite radio is already killing FM radio, let's see tons of commercials on FM radio or no commercials on satellite at like less than a dollar a day???? hmmmm, I think I know the answer to this one!!! 120+ channels too, much more variety which FM can't offer, 5 country channels, 10 pop channels, 10 rock channels, sports, talk, way better traffic channels....less repeats too.
Satellite radio is already killing FM radio, let's see tons of commercials on FM radio or no commercials on satellite at like less than a dollar a day???? hmmmm, I think I know the answer to this one!!! 120+ channels too, much more variety which FM can't offer, 5 country channels, 10 pop channels, 10 rock channels, sports, talk, way better traffic channels....less repeats too.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Not quite, my friend.
> Satellite radio is already killing FM radio, let's see tons
> of commercials on FM radio or no commercials on satellite at
> like less than a dollar a day???? hmmmm, I think I know the
> answer to this one!!! 120+ channels too, much more variety
> which FM can't offer, 5 country channels, 10 pop channels,
> 10 rock channels, sports, talk, way better traffic
> channels....less repeats too.
I repeat ... Satellite radio <u>IS NOT YET "KILLING" BROADCAST</u>. The subscriber numbers simply are not there. Your rhetorical arguments are not valid.
Prediction: If/when satellite radio comes up with a business model that can do damage to broadcast radio -- such as the "free equipment" idea that has been suggested elsewhere in this thread -- there will be commercials on satellite radio. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Satellite radio is already killing FM radio, let's see tons
> of commercials on FM radio or no commercials on satellite at
> like less than a dollar a day???? hmmmm, I think I know the
> answer to this one!!! 120+ channels too, much more variety
> which FM can't offer, 5 country channels, 10 pop channels,
> 10 rock channels, sports, talk, way better traffic
> channels....less repeats too.
I repeat ... Satellite radio <u>IS NOT YET "KILLING" BROADCAST</u>. The subscriber numbers simply are not there. Your rhetorical arguments are not valid.
Prediction: If/when satellite radio comes up with a business model that can do damage to broadcast radio -- such as the "free equipment" idea that has been suggested elsewhere in this thread -- there will be commercials on satellite radio. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Re: Not quite, my friend.
Who said I was arguing??? I am just stating my enjoyment for sat. radio, and the pros and cons over FM radio, geez, cool down their buddy.
let's all play nice and listen to our satellite radios!!!!! you gots to learn to respect other peoples opinion, we all have them.
Who said I was arguing??? I am just stating my enjoyment for sat. radio, and the pros and cons over FM radio, geez, cool down their buddy.
let's all play nice and listen to our satellite radios!!!!! you gots to learn to respect other peoples opinion, we all have them.Back to the original question for a moment...
Why did you ask just about "FM" listeners?!
AM is far, far from dead and I'd bet many folks who listen to "radio" and have satellite, still swap back and from between the two medias for what they want, be it local news and weather or a program that is not on satellite.
I listen to my XM for more talk & news programs than for music, but that's just me.
<P ID="signature">______________
"Be seeing you..."</P>
Why did you ask just about "FM" listeners?!
AM is far, far from dead and I'd bet many folks who listen to "radio" and have satellite, still swap back and from between the two medias for what they want, be it local news and weather or a program that is not on satellite.
I listen to my XM for more talk & news programs than for music, but that's just me.
<P ID="signature">______________
"Be seeing you..."</P>
> Back to the original question for a moment...
>
> Why did you ask just about "FM" listeners?!
>
> AM is far, far from dead and I'd bet many folks who listen
> to "radio" and have satellite, still swap back and from
> between the two medias for what they want, be it local news
> and weather or a program that is not on satellite.
>
> I listen to my XM for more talk & news programs than for
> music, but that's just me.
>
Extremely valid point. There is no real news radio in most markets. Just endless right wing babble. I find myself turning more often than not to CNN or MSNBC on my satellite radio. I don't understand why the cable news networks don't affiliate with radio stations. I'd listen.
>
> Why did you ask just about "FM" listeners?!
>
> AM is far, far from dead and I'd bet many folks who listen
> to "radio" and have satellite, still swap back and from
> between the two medias for what they want, be it local news
> and weather or a program that is not on satellite.
>
> I listen to my XM for more talk & news programs than for
> music, but that's just me.
>
Extremely valid point. There is no real news radio in most markets. Just endless right wing babble. I find myself turning more often than not to CNN or MSNBC on my satellite radio. I don't understand why the cable news networks don't affiliate with radio stations. I'd listen.
Re: Not quite, my friend.
> Satellite radio is already killing FM radio, let's see tons
> of commercials on FM radio or no commercials on satellite at
> like less than a dollar a day???? hmmmm, I think I know the
> answer to this one!!! 120+ channels too, much more variety
> which FM can't offer, 5 country channels, 10 pop channels,
> 10 rock channels, sports, talk, way better traffic
> channels....less repeats too.
Don't forget AM radio!
> Satellite radio is already killing FM radio, let's see tons
> of commercials on FM radio or no commercials on satellite at
> like less than a dollar a day???? hmmmm, I think I know the
> answer to this one!!! 120+ channels too, much more variety
> which FM can't offer, 5 country channels, 10 pop channels,
> 10 rock channels, sports, talk, way better traffic
> channels....less repeats too.
Don't forget AM radio!
K
k9ez
Guest
Re: Not quite, my friend.
> Who said I was arguing??? I am just stating my enjoyment for
> sat. radio, and the pros and cons over FM radio, geez, cool
> down their buddy. let's all play nice and listen to our
> satellite radios!!!!! you gots to learn to
> respect other peoples opinion, we all have them.
>
He seemed pretty calm to me. It is just that you seem to have a hard time understanding or comprending the fact that Sat radio is not making much of a dent in terrestrial radio yet. And may never.
So go run along and listen to your satellite radio. You are one of the few.
Numbers are numbers my friend. You relied on numbers for your original post, now you are stating it is an opinion. Which is it?
> Who said I was arguing??? I am just stating my enjoyment for
> sat. radio, and the pros and cons over FM radio, geez, cool
> down their buddy.
let's all play nice and listen to our> satellite radios!!!!!
you gots to learn to> respect other peoples opinion, we all have them.
>
He seemed pretty calm to me. It is just that you seem to have a hard time understanding or comprending the fact that Sat radio is not making much of a dent in terrestrial radio yet. And may never.
So go run along and listen to your satellite radio. You are one of the few.
Numbers are numbers my friend. You relied on numbers for your original post, now you are stating it is an opinion. Which is it?
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Not quite, my friend.
> Who said I was arguing??? I am just stating my enjoyment for
> sat. radio, and the pros and cons over FM radio, geez, cool
> down their buddy. let's all play nice and listen to our
> satellite radios!!!!! you gots to learn to
> respect other peoples opinion, we all have them.
I'm sorry, I have little respect for people who post highly rhetorical opinions, are challenged by the facts, then respond with the same rhetoric.
And "stating your enjoyment" does not include gleefully saying that satellite radio is "killing" broadcast radio. That changes the tone of your post, which is what I was responding to.
Nice try at rewriting history, though.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Who said I was arguing??? I am just stating my enjoyment for
> sat. radio, and the pros and cons over FM radio, geez, cool
> down their buddy.
let's all play nice and listen to our> satellite radios!!!!!
you gots to learn to> respect other peoples opinion, we all have them.
I'm sorry, I have little respect for people who post highly rhetorical opinions, are challenged by the facts, then respond with the same rhetoric.
And "stating your enjoyment" does not include gleefully saying that satellite radio is "killing" broadcast radio. That changes the tone of your post, which is what I was responding to.
Nice try at rewriting history, though.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
S
SamBuca
Guest
People don't like change, especially in this day and age. The only reason why the amount of subscribers for satellite radio has risen is because manufacturers put it in the new cars....only nerds like me actually went out and bought units to install myself back in the day.
When satellite radio can at least get up to FM sound quality, then we'll have more to talk about. Maybe it's just the particular engineer for a cluster here, but their FM signal (they broadcast in that "HDFM" thing too) is crystal clear...best I've ever heard. Makes satellite sound like a phonograph.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
When satellite radio can at least get up to FM sound quality, then we'll have more to talk about. Maybe it's just the particular engineer for a cluster here, but their FM signal (they broadcast in that "HDFM" thing too) is crystal clear...best I've ever heard. Makes satellite sound like a phonograph.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
K
k9ez
Guest
> People don't like change, especially in this day and age.
> The only reason why the amount of subscribers for satellite
> radio has risen is because manufacturers put it in the new
> cars....only nerds like me actually went out and bought
> units to install myself back in the day.
>
> When satellite radio can at least get up to FM sound
> quality, then we'll have more to talk about. Maybe it's just
> the particular engineer for a cluster here, but their FM
> signal (they broadcast in that "HDFM" thing too) is crystal
> clear...best I've ever heard. Makes satellite sound like a
> phonograph.
>
Annnnnd.. if satellite adds more channels it will only get worse.
> The only reason why the amount of subscribers for satellite
> radio has risen is because manufacturers put it in the new
> cars....only nerds like me actually went out and bought
> units to install myself back in the day.
>
> When satellite radio can at least get up to FM sound
> quality, then we'll have more to talk about. Maybe it's just
> the particular engineer for a cluster here, but their FM
> signal (they broadcast in that "HDFM" thing too) is crystal
> clear...best I've ever heard. Makes satellite sound like a
> phonograph.
>
Annnnnd.. if satellite adds more channels it will only get worse.
Re: SQ
> People don't like change, especially in this day and age.
> The only reason why the amount of subscribers for satellite
> radio has risen is because manufacturers put it in the new
> cars....only nerds like me actually went out and bought
> units to install myself back in the day.
>
> When satellite radio can at least get up to FM sound
> quality, then we'll have more to talk about. Maybe it's just
> the particular engineer for a cluster here, but their FM
> signal (they broadcast in that "HDFM" thing too) is crystal
> clear...best I've ever heard. Makes satellite sound like a
> phonograph.
>
Sound quality is subjective. I know people many who think its better sounding than FM... At least with Sirius.
> People don't like change, especially in this day and age.
> The only reason why the amount of subscribers for satellite
> radio has risen is because manufacturers put it in the new
> cars....only nerds like me actually went out and bought
> units to install myself back in the day.
>
> When satellite radio can at least get up to FM sound
> quality, then we'll have more to talk about. Maybe it's just
> the particular engineer for a cluster here, but their FM
> signal (they broadcast in that "HDFM" thing too) is crystal
> clear...best I've ever heard. Makes satellite sound like a
> phonograph.
>
Sound quality is subjective. I know people many who think its better sounding than FM... At least with Sirius.
K
Kahn_II
Guest
Re: SQ
> Sound quality is subjective. I know people many who think
> its better sounding than FM... At least with Sirius.
I agree Sirius sounds better than XM, but the CD quality sound they claim (or at elast used to)isn't true. In my opinion, traditional radio (at least sound-wise, not always content) is far better. I need to hear the stations by me on a HD reciever so I can see how much of a difference THAT is.<P ID="signature">______________
-DK</P>
> Sound quality is subjective. I know people many who think
> its better sounding than FM... At least with Sirius.
I agree Sirius sounds better than XM, but the CD quality sound they claim (or at elast used to)isn't true. In my opinion, traditional radio (at least sound-wise, not always content) is far better. I need to hear the stations by me on a HD reciever so I can see how much of a difference THAT is.<P ID="signature">______________
-DK</P>
Re: SQ
> > Sound quality is subjective. I know people many who think
> > its better sounding than FM... At least with Sirius.
>
>
> I agree Sirius sounds better than XM, but the CD quality
> sound they claim (or at elast used to)isn't true. In my
> opinion, traditional radio (at least sound-wise, not always
> content) is far better. I need to hear the stations by me on
> a HD reciever so I can see how much of a difference THAT is.
>
Sirius sounds close to a 128 mp3 to me and "at times" cd quality. The SQ is always changing day to day, channel to channel... Like for instance, most of the channels were sounding Really really good yesterday. Tight crisp high and bass but other nights it sounds weaker.
Whats your setup because I have a Tuner to HU setup for the best possible sound (not a PNP!) and using toslink home receiver for the home. Ive had people in my car who thought it was a cd listening to Sirius until they found out otherwise.
Now for XM. I have a tuner to HU setup for that too and I can say FM and Sirius sounds better. The volume levels are not equal from channel to channel. Certain songs sound ok and certain songs sound like crap. Not every song has crisp highs and sounds muddy. Its not as bright as Sirius. Im disappointed in the SQ on XM.
> > Sound quality is subjective. I know people many who think
> > its better sounding than FM... At least with Sirius.
>
>
> I agree Sirius sounds better than XM, but the CD quality
> sound they claim (or at elast used to)isn't true. In my
> opinion, traditional radio (at least sound-wise, not always
> content) is far better. I need to hear the stations by me on
> a HD reciever so I can see how much of a difference THAT is.
>
Sirius sounds close to a 128 mp3 to me and "at times" cd quality. The SQ is always changing day to day, channel to channel... Like for instance, most of the channels were sounding Really really good yesterday. Tight crisp high and bass but other nights it sounds weaker.
Whats your setup because I have a Tuner to HU setup for the best possible sound (not a PNP!) and using toslink home receiver for the home. Ive had people in my car who thought it was a cd listening to Sirius until they found out otherwise.
Now for XM. I have a tuner to HU setup for that too and I can say FM and Sirius sounds better. The volume levels are not equal from channel to channel. Certain songs sound ok and certain songs sound like crap. Not every song has crisp highs and sounds muddy. Its not as bright as Sirius. Im disappointed in the SQ on XM.
> I don't understand why the cable news networks don't
> affiliate with radio stations. I'd listen.
CNN Headline News' audio is heard on a number of affiliates. These affiliates, however, are in such dead end markets as Kankakee, IL (WKIF 92.7) and Bangor, ME (1340 WNZS).
I think a big problem is that the TV networks are continually citing images and the like, making listening for a substantial amount of time tough. And with Headline News now having news/talk shows in the primetime hours, Headline News' quality as a news network is becoming far diminished.
> affiliate with radio stations. I'd listen.
CNN Headline News' audio is heard on a number of affiliates. These affiliates, however, are in such dead end markets as Kankakee, IL (WKIF 92.7) and Bangor, ME (1340 WNZS).
I think a big problem is that the TV networks are continually citing images and the like, making listening for a substantial amount of time tough. And with Headline News now having news/talk shows in the primetime hours, Headline News' quality as a news network is becoming far diminished.
- Status