Can you guys tell me why you say they have better technology? Why does XM need so many more terrestrial repeaters than Sirius? Is more repeaters better? Does anyone know and understand the orbits both constellations fly in? Why did each company pick a different type of orbit?
I used to work for Sirius as a spacecraft analyst (fly the satellites) and I know and understand each companies systems. It's mind bogoling (sp?) to me how people can spout off on a topic when they really don't know or understand the concept or technology behind the different systems.
The companies can only add as many channels as the techonolgy allows them to compress in their own bandwidth. The companies, I know Sirius for sure, will be offering video with there system before too long. They demonstrated that at several CES shows.
In the next year or so, the FCC mandates back in 99-00(Don't remember specific dates) that each company trade information and develop an interoperable receiver. This way the consumer is not potentially bound by the car they buy but can choose their service provider based on content. This is a way to level the playing field and have companies really compete for there content.
Anyway, just wanted to add my .02.
Cool, someone I can ask this question to...
It's been said (hell, I've parroted it a few times) that XM's satellites are on a lower inclination, that's why the need the terestrial repeaters to fill in low signal strength in the mountians and where there are tall structures. Where as Sirius satalites are farther up from the horizon, ensuring a little bit better signal. Any truth to that??
Also, I've heard rumors that XM has no spare satellites.
I've got Sirius now and have never even turned on the local stations in over a year and a half. I will never go back to broadcast radio. Sirius has better music IMHO, and some of the talk programs are better as well (gota love Maxim radio... )