Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

I meant to say, "If it's important enough to me then I'm going to do it even
if others aren't understanding."

"Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote in message
news:kl3qc.11712$zO3.7638@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Not really but I do try not to look like an idiot. If it's important
enough
> to me then I'm not going to do it even if others aren't understanding.
>
> "Robert Blank" <bob@NOblankproductions.com> wrote in message
> news:1gd5nbr.bb2oj91havkiqN%bob@NOblankproductions .com...
> > are you that shallow that if outher people make fun of your antenna, it
> > will affect your decision as to how you equip your automobile?
> >
> > Aron <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:
> >
> > > Why XM? Remember, when cable came out they said no ads too.
Everyone
> > > switched to cable and now there is hardly any broadcast TV. Now
> everyone
> > > with cable is stuck paying for ads that make an hour and a half movie
> three
> > > hours long. Why pay for radio when it's already free?
> > >
> > > I have experienced XM in a car, not just some display in a store.
In
> > > places with trees it cuts out like a cell phone. A digital station
> can't
> > > come in unless it's clear. Also, I hear people make fun of the funny
> > > antenna you have to put on the roof. Basically, you're only going to
> > > impress the people that need the newest thing to spend money on.
> > >
> > > Basically, I don't see how it can be worthwhile.
> > >
> > > Aron
> > >
> > > "Robert11" <rgsxrose@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:sd6dnQ5zuveTYxLdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> > > > Hello:
> > > >
> > > > Am thinking of getting satellite radio XM as a gift for a person
> > > > with a new 2004 Accord LX 6 cyl. Apparently it does not come
> > > > with an XM capable radio (only the leather packages have it) so will
> > > > have to do it the hard way, I guess.
> > > >
> > > > a. Does the "standard" 6 CD radio that came installed with the car
> have
> > > an
> > > > aux. jack, anywhere, to accept the XM tuner output, or must one use
> the
> > > > small fm transmitter that
> > > > you can purchase for it ?
> > > >
> > > > b. Hate to have to install the antenna on the exterior of the car.
> > > > The salesman said that it works fine placing it on the dashboard, as
> the
> > > > glass is so extremely angled, it has a good sky view. Also said it
> works
> > > if
> > > > you
> > > > place it on the rear inside shelf.
> > > >
> > > > Are both of these statements true ?
> > > > Or, is it "substantially" better on the roof ?
> > > >
> > > > c. Not too sure what else to ask.
> > > >
> > > > Are you folks happy with XM ?
> > > > Works well ?
> > > > Worth it, in your opinion ?
> > > >
> > > > Any caveats, etc. ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Bob
> > > >
>
>

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

In article <TJ3vc.33947$zO3.10743@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
"Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:

> > > Even in a metro area you only have a
> > > small number of broadcast television stations. I would hate to see that
> > > happen to radio.
> >
> > It's already happened.
>
>
> I think you are confusing a small selection of content providers (Clear
> Channel) with a small number of stations.

When a single content provider owns a large number of frequencies, it's
no different than Starbucks owning every corner. Just because I can
physically move from one frequency to another, doesn't mean I'm moving
from station to station or content to content.

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

Aron wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-39C042.17345117052004@news.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <th3qc.11694$zO3.1021@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:
>>
>>> That's pretty good. I wouldn't want an extra bill in order to
>>> listen to the radio though.
>>
>> That's funny. I bet you buy bottles of water for a dollar. I bet
>> you go to Starbucks and overpay for coffee. But ten bucks a month
>> for commercial free music in the car, now that's different. Right?
>
>
> No, Starbucks is a rip off and I don't go for the idea of buying
> water.

I go to 7-11, and I have my own home filtration for drinking water.....

And I still like my XM......


>
>
>>> I have never been anywhere I can remember where there was no
>>> radio coverage.
>>
>> Well, now, if you consider the Reverend Billy Joe Bob to be radio
>> worth listening to, you may be right.
>
>
> You deleted my following line that makes this comment of yours
> nonsequiter.
>
>
>>> I don't like the idea of paying for
>>> radio.
>>
>> Remember that the next time you buy a bottle of water.
>
>
> I don't like the idea of paying for water either.
>
>
>
>>> Paying for TV (cable) was the downfall of local television coverage
>>> and now you really can't get TV without paying a premium for it
>>> even though advertisers have already paid for it.
>>
>> Radio has already gone down the tubes. Ten bucks a month for the
>> privilege of NOT listening to a Clear Channel station is well worth
>> it.
>>
>> I'll give up the two cups of Starbucks per month for that.
>
>
> OK, Clear Channel does suck and they are doing their best to
> monopolise the radio dial.
>
>
>>> Even in a metro area you only have a
>>> small number of broadcast television stations. I would hate to see
>>> that happen to radio.
>>
>> It's already happened.
>
>
> I think you are confusing a small selection of content providers
> (Clear Channel) with a small number of stations.

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

Aron wrote:
> I like the idea of getting something that is the expression of the
> local community. I hate when I am hundreds of miles away from home
> and I realize I'm listening to another Clear Channel station
> regurgitating the same contrived crap based on marketing. I feel
> ripped off. It's like if when I talked to you, you talked to me in
> the scripted manor of many over the phone customer service
> departments. I wouldn't be pleased because I wouldn't be talking to
> an individual, I'd be talking to the same script with a different
> voice - a load of crap. So I am all for local culture. I go to a
> place to experience a place not to be in my own bubble. Sure I would
> like the ability to tune in to those familiar stations back home
> sometimes but I think it's kind of sick when places don't have their
> own voice. Just the same, I carry enough CDs on a trip to last if
> that's the mood I'm in so in the end I don't see how I'd really get
> anything out of that $10/mo. Also, keep in mind that it'll be cheap
> now but the price will probably go through the roof if XM dominates.
> I don't want to be stuck getting soaked for a service for the basic
> things. Anyway, like you said value is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, but remember those CD's cost money as well (I know, I have a huge stack
of them. I even have a rack of a few hundred vinyl LPs.

Either way, the music is paid for (unless you use kazaa or something
similar).

>
>
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:f4dqc.69196$536.11235489@attbi_s03...
>> Aron wrote:
>>> That's pretty good. I wouldn't want an extra bill in order to
>>> listen to the radio though. I have never been anywhere I can
>>> remember where there was no radio coverage.
>>
>> I can think of a few places where radio coverage was minimal. I
>> like the idea of having the same stations all the time, no matter
>> where one is.
>>
>> As far as the bill, as I said before, value is in the eye of the
>> beholder. For me, it is worth the $10 a month.
>>
>>> I have, however been where there are
>>> only two stations and they both suck. I guess that's about equal to
>>> cutting out in Yosemite since either way I'd be popping in a CD.
>>
>> Always a good alternative, though those CD's do cost money, so
>> either way, it is paid for.
>>
>>> I
>>> don't like the idea of paying for radio. Paying for TV (cable) was
>>> the downfall of local television coverage and now you really can't
>>> get TV without paying a premium for it even though advertisers have
>>> already paid for it. Even in a metro area you only have a small
>>> number of broadcast television stations. I would hate to see that
>>> happen to radio.
>>
>> I get 16 stations with my OTA antenna on the roof (funny how things
>> have a habit of coming back in style), 11 digital, and 7 or 8 that
>> offer HD content.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:_pjkc.1326$I%1.149423@attbi_s51...
>>>> Aron wrote:
>>>>> Why XM? Remember, when cable came out they said no ads too.
>>>>> Everyone switched to cable and now there is hardly any broadcast
>>>>> TV. Now everyone with cable is stuck paying for ads that make an
>>>>> hour and a half movie three hours long. Why pay for radio when
>>>>> it's already free?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have experienced XM in a car, not just some display in a
>>>>> store. In places with trees it cuts out like a cell phone. A
>>>>> digital station can't come in unless it's clear. Also, I hear
>>>>> people make fun of the funny antenna you have to put on the roof.
>>>>> Basically, you're only going to impress the people that need the
>>>>> newest thing to spend money on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, I don't see how it can be worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> I have one, and I probably wouldn't want to do without it now.
>>>>
>>>> I drove from the SF Bay area to the middle of Yosemite, and I
>>>> didn't loose it until I got almost to the middle of the park. I
>>>> never loose it around town......
>>>>
>>>> So far, no commercials are only on the music stations. CNN, MSNBC,
>>>> ESPN radio, et al have commercials.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aron
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert11" <rgsxrose@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:sd6dnQ5zuveTYxLdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am thinking of getting satellite radio XM as a gift for a person
>>>>>> with a new 2004 Accord LX 6 cyl. Apparently it does not come
>>>>>> with an XM capable radio (only the leather packages have it) so
>>>>>> will have to do it the hard way, I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a. Does the "standard" 6 CD radio that came installed with the
>>>>>> car have an aux. jack, anywhere, to accept the XM tuner output,
>>>>>> or must one use the small fm transmitter that
>>>>>> you can purchase for it ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b. Hate to have to install the antenna on the exterior of the
>>>>>> car. The salesman said that it works fine placing it on the
>>>>>> dashboard, as the glass is so extremely angled, it has a good
>>>>>> sky view. Also said it works if you
>>>>>> place it on the rear inside shelf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are both of these statements true ?
>>>>>> Or, is it "substantially" better on the roof ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c. Not too sure what else to ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you folks happy with XM ?
>>>>>> Works well ?
>>>>>> Worth it, in your opinion ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any caveats, etc. ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Bob

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

True but CDs are solid ad-free music and you have the right to play it as
long as you keep it. My point was that cable advertised that you pay for
service, get more and better channels, and get no ads. Then everyone ended
up paying for ad filled programming, when the ads already paid for the
programming, because the only alternative was, say 2 fuzzy broadcast
stations because broadcast TV was out of style. XM advertises the same
thing. Pay a fee and get no ads, yet they already have plenty of stations
with ads. So what's the deal? It might look like a good deal now with all
the stations but if XM becomes the standard, like cable, and there's no
competition, the price will go through the roof and so will the advertising.
Keep in mind almost all of the "stations" or programming we hear anywhere
are mostly owned by a very few companies such as Turner and Warner and their
various versions. They know about the great economic success of cable and
how it worked and they live to monopolize media. Their dream is for the
exact same thing to happen with the radio. They want you to pay a fee for
radio after it has already been paid for by advertising. That's how you
make billions and billions.
"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:RgSvc.4895$%F2.3778@attbi_s04...
> Aron wrote:
> > I like the idea of getting something that is the expression of the
> > local community. I hate when I am hundreds of miles away from home
> > and I realize I'm listening to another Clear Channel station
> > regurgitating the same contrived crap based on marketing. I feel
> > ripped off. It's like if when I talked to you, you talked to me in
> > the scripted manor of many over the phone customer service
> > departments. I wouldn't be pleased because I wouldn't be talking to
> > an individual, I'd be talking to the same script with a different
> > voice - a load of crap. So I am all for local culture. I go to a
> > place to experience a place not to be in my own bubble. Sure I would
> > like the ability to tune in to those familiar stations back home
> > sometimes but I think it's kind of sick when places don't have their
> > own voice. Just the same, I carry enough CDs on a trip to last if
> > that's the mood I'm in so in the end I don't see how I'd really get
> > anything out of that $10/mo. Also, keep in mind that it'll be cheap
> > now but the price will probably go through the roof if XM dominates.
> > I don't want to be stuck getting soaked for a service for the basic
> > things. Anyway, like you said value is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Yes, but remember those CD's cost money as well (I know, I have a huge
stack
> of them. I even have a rack of a few hundred vinyl LPs.
>
> Either way, the music is paid for (unless you use kazaa or something
> similar).
>
> >
> >
> > "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:f4dqc.69196$536.11235489@attbi_s03...
> >> Aron wrote:
> >>> That's pretty good. I wouldn't want an extra bill in order to
> >>> listen to the radio though. I have never been anywhere I can
> >>> remember where there was no radio coverage.
> >>
> >> I can think of a few places where radio coverage was minimal. I
> >> like the idea of having the same stations all the time, no matter
> >> where one is.
> >>
> >> As far as the bill, as I said before, value is in the eye of the
> >> beholder. For me, it is worth the $10 a month.
> >>
> >>> I have, however been where there are
> >>> only two stations and they both suck. I guess that's about equal to
> >>> cutting out in Yosemite since either way I'd be popping in a CD.
> >>
> >> Always a good alternative, though those CD's do cost money, so
> >> either way, it is paid for.
> >>
> >>> I
> >>> don't like the idea of paying for radio. Paying for TV (cable) was
> >>> the downfall of local television coverage and now you really can't
> >>> get TV without paying a premium for it even though advertisers have
> >>> already paid for it. Even in a metro area you only have a small
> >>> number of broadcast television stations. I would hate to see that
> >>> happen to radio.
> >>
> >> I get 16 stations with my OTA antenna on the roof (funny how things
> >> have a habit of coming back in style), 11 digital, and 7 or 8 that
> >> offer HD content.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:_pjkc.1326$I%1.149423@attbi_s51...
> >>>> Aron wrote:
> >>>>> Why XM? Remember, when cable came out they said no ads too.
> >>>>> Everyone switched to cable and now there is hardly any broadcast
> >>>>> TV. Now everyone with cable is stuck paying for ads that make an
> >>>>> hour and a half movie three hours long. Why pay for radio when
> >>>>> it's already free?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have experienced XM in a car, not just some display in a
> >>>>> store. In places with trees it cuts out like a cell phone. A
> >>>>> digital station can't come in unless it's clear. Also, I hear
> >>>>> people make fun of the funny antenna you have to put on the roof.
> >>>>> Basically, you're only going to impress the people that need the
> >>>>> newest thing to spend money on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Basically, I don't see how it can be worthwhile.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have one, and I probably wouldn't want to do without it now.
> >>>>
> >>>> I drove from the SF Bay area to the middle of Yosemite, and I
> >>>> didn't loose it until I got almost to the middle of the park. I
> >>>> never loose it around town......
> >>>>
> >>>> So far, no commercials are only on the music stations. CNN, MSNBC,
> >>>> ESPN radio, et al have commercials.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aron
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Robert11" <rgsxrose@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:sd6dnQ5zuveTYxLdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> >>>>>> Hello:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am thinking of getting satellite radio XM as a gift for a person
> >>>>>> with a new 2004 Accord LX 6 cyl. Apparently it does not come
> >>>>>> with an XM capable radio (only the leather packages have it) so
> >>>>>> will have to do it the hard way, I guess.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a. Does the "standard" 6 CD radio that came installed with the
> >>>>>> car have an aux. jack, anywhere, to accept the XM tuner output,
> >>>>>> or must one use the small fm transmitter that
> >>>>>> you can purchase for it ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> b. Hate to have to install the antenna on the exterior of the
> >>>>>> car. The salesman said that it works fine placing it on the
> >>>>>> dashboard, as the glass is so extremely angled, it has a good
> >>>>>> sky view. Also said it works if you
> >>>>>> place it on the rear inside shelf.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are both of these statements true ?
> >>>>>> Or, is it "substantially" better on the roof ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> c. Not too sure what else to ask.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you folks happy with XM ?
> >>>>>> Works well ?
> >>>>>> Worth it, in your opinion ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any caveats, etc. ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Bob
>
>

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

In article <9GYvc.37439$zO3.34527@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
"Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:

> True but CDs are solid ad-free music and you have the right to play it as
> long as you keep it. My point was that cable advertised that you pay for
> service, get more and better channels, and get no ads. Then everyone ended
> up paying for ad filled programming, when the ads already paid for the
> programming, because the only alternative was, say 2 fuzzy broadcast
> stations because broadcast TV was out of style. XM advertises the same
> thing. Pay a fee and get no ads, yet they already have plenty of stations
> with ads. So what's the deal? It might look like a good deal now with all
> the stations but if XM becomes the standard, like cable, and there's no
> competition, the price will go through the roof and so will the advertising.

And then you stop paying the subscription fee, and move on to something
else.

Until then, listen to the ad-free music stations and enjoy.

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

In article <elmop-DF3219.07452304062004@text.usenetserver.com> "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> writes:


>Until then, listen to the ad-free music stations and enjoy.

XM music channels will remain ad-free as long as it is economical for them
to do so. As long as new subscriptions keep pouring in, as they currently
are, the folks at XM are enjoying their first positive cash flow since
going into business.


--
Support XM Satellite Radio!
Tell the FCC how you feel about the Natl Assn of Broadcasters'
attempts to block local content! We need your help.
<http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp>
<http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040120-tk.html>

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

Aron wrote:
> True but CDs are solid ad-free music and you have the right to play
> it as long as you keep it. My point was that cable advertised that
> you pay for service, get more and better channels, and get no ads.

I don't remember this claim at all. I remember more/better programming,
though the jury is still out on that (especially if one watches TVland quite
a bit!).

Premium channels are "add free", except for the "ads" for their own
programs. I will usually sit down and watch an HBO movie before commercial
TV, as I think the ads are insulting, at best.

> Then everyone ended up paying for ad filled programming, when the ads
> already paid for the programming, because the only alternative was,
> say 2 fuzzy broadcast stations because broadcast TV was out of style.

I can get just about 20 stations of "free" tv as well with my new antenna. I
use it mostly for HD sports and specials.

> XM advertises the same thing. Pay a fee and get no ads, yet they
> already have plenty of stations with ads. So what's the deal?

The stations I listen to have no ads. Only music.

>It
> might look like a good deal now with all the stations but if XM
> becomes the standard, like cable, and there's no competition, the
> price will go through the roof and so will the advertising.

Other then using satellite services, there is little hard infrastructure
needed for XM or Sirrus radio. All the user needs is a radio and an
antenna. Since most new cars are coming equipped with them, the subscribers
will go up. Will one end up on top and squash the competition? Maybe, but
there is no need for exclusive franchises from different towns and cities as
there is for cable.

> Keep in
> mind almost all of the "stations" or programming we hear anywhere are
> mostly owned by a very few companies such as Turner and Warner and
> their various versions. They know about the great economic success
> of cable and how it worked and they live to monopolize media. Their
> dream is for the exact same thing to happen with the radio.

Well, of course, that is what a capitalist society does. Companies are in
it to make money. One can easily turn it off if need be.....

>They
> want you to pay a fee for radio after it has already been paid for by
> advertising. That's how you make billions and billions.

As I said, 6 months, and I have yet to hear a commercial on the music
stations. Only on the talk channels and CNN/MSNBC/FOXNEWS, etc.

"L Alpert"
> <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RgSvc.4895$%F2.3778@attbi_s04...
>> Aron wrote:
>>> I like the idea of getting something that is the expression of the
>>> local community. I hate when I am hundreds of miles away from home
>>> and I realize I'm listening to another Clear Channel station
>>> regurgitating the same contrived crap based on marketing. I feel
>>> ripped off. It's like if when I talked to you, you talked to me in
>>> the scripted manor of many over the phone customer service
>>> departments. I wouldn't be pleased because I wouldn't be talking to
>>> an individual, I'd be talking to the same script with a different
>>> voice - a load of crap. So I am all for local culture. I go to a
>>> place to experience a place not to be in my own bubble. Sure I
>>> would like the ability to tune in to those familiar stations back
>>> home sometimes but I think it's kind of sick when places don't have
>>> their own voice. Just the same, I carry enough CDs on a trip to
>>> last if that's the mood I'm in so in the end I don't see how I'd
>>> really get anything out of that $10/mo. Also, keep in mind that
>>> it'll be cheap now but the price will probably go through the roof
>>> if XM dominates. I don't want to be stuck getting soaked for a
>>> service for the basic things. Anyway, like you said value is in
>>> the eye of the beholder.
>>
>> Yes, but remember those CD's cost money as well (I know, I have a
>> huge stack of them. I even have a rack of a few hundred vinyl LPs.
>>
>> Either way, the music is paid for (unless you use kazaa or something
>> similar).
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:f4dqc.69196$536.11235489@attbi_s03...
>>>> Aron wrote:
>>>>> That's pretty good. I wouldn't want an extra bill in order to
>>>>> listen to the radio though. I have never been anywhere I can
>>>>> remember where there was no radio coverage.
>>>>
>>>> I can think of a few places where radio coverage was minimal. I
>>>> like the idea of having the same stations all the time, no matter
>>>> where one is.
>>>>
>>>> As far as the bill, as I said before, value is in the eye of the
>>>> beholder. For me, it is worth the $10 a month.
>>>>
>>>>> I have, however been where there are
>>>>> only two stations and they both suck. I guess that's about equal
>>>>> to cutting out in Yosemite since either way I'd be popping in a
>>>>> CD.
>>>>
>>>> Always a good alternative, though those CD's do cost money, so
>>>> either way, it is paid for.
>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>> don't like the idea of paying for radio. Paying for TV (cable)
>>>>> was the downfall of local television coverage and now you really
>>>>> can't get TV without paying a premium for it even though
>>>>> advertisers have already paid for it. Even in a metro area you
>>>>> only have a small number of broadcast television stations. I
>>>>> would hate to see that happen to radio.
>>>>
>>>> I get 16 stations with my OTA antenna on the roof (funny how things
>>>> have a habit of coming back in style), 11 digital, and 7 or 8 that
>>>> offer HD content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_pjkc.1326$I%1.149423@attbi_s51...
>>>>>> Aron wrote:
>>>>>>> Why XM? Remember, when cable came out they said no ads too.
>>>>>>> Everyone switched to cable and now there is hardly any broadcast
>>>>>>> TV. Now everyone with cable is stuck paying for ads that make an
>>>>>>> hour and a half movie three hours long. Why pay for radio when
>>>>>>> it's already free?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have experienced XM in a car, not just some display in a
>>>>>>> store. In places with trees it cuts out like a cell phone. A
>>>>>>> digital station can't come in unless it's clear. Also, I hear
>>>>>>> people make fun of the funny antenna you have to put on the
>>>>>>> roof. Basically, you're only going to impress the people that
>>>>>>> need the newest thing to spend money on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, I don't see how it can be worthwhile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one, and I probably wouldn't want to do without it now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I drove from the SF Bay area to the middle of Yosemite, and I
>>>>>> didn't loose it until I got almost to the middle of the park. I
>>>>>> never loose it around town......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, no commercials are only on the music stations. CNN,
>>>>>> MSNBC, ESPN radio, et al have commercials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Robert11" <rgsxrose@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:sd6dnQ5zuveTYxLdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> Hello:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am thinking of getting satellite radio XM as a gift for a
>>>>>>>> person with a new 2004 Accord LX 6 cyl. Apparently it does
>>>>>>>> not come with an XM capable radio (only the leather packages
>>>>>>>> have it) so will have to do it the hard way, I guess.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a. Does the "standard" 6 CD radio that came installed with the
>>>>>>>> car have an aux. jack, anywhere, to accept the XM tuner output,
>>>>>>>> or must one use the small fm transmitter that
>>>>>>>> you can purchase for it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b. Hate to have to install the antenna on the exterior of the
>>>>>>>> car. The salesman said that it works fine placing it on the
>>>>>>>> dashboard, as the glass is so extremely angled, it has a good
>>>>>>>> sky view. Also said it works if you
>>>>>>>> place it on the rear inside shelf.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are both of these statements true ?
>>>>>>>> Or, is it "substantially" better on the roof ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c. Not too sure what else to ask.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you folks happy with XM ?
>>>>>>>> Works well ?
>>>>>>>> Worth it, in your opinion ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any caveats, etc. ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Bob

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive XM is
useless. I imagine few people care though.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-DF3219.07452304062004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <9GYvc.37439$zO3.34527@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:
>
> > True but CDs are solid ad-free music and you have the right to play it
as
> > long as you keep it. My point was that cable advertised that you pay
for
> > service, get more and better channels, and get no ads. Then everyone
ended
> > up paying for ad filled programming, when the ads already paid for the
> > programming, because the only alternative was, say 2 fuzzy broadcast
> > stations because broadcast TV was out of style. XM advertises the same
> > thing. Pay a fee and get no ads, yet they already have plenty of
stations
> > with ads. So what's the deal? It might look like a good deal now with
all
> > the stations but if XM becomes the standard, like cable, and there's no
> > competition, the price will go through the roof and so will the
advertising.
>
> And then you stop paying the subscription fee, and move on to something
> else.
>
> Until then, listen to the ad-free music stations and enjoy.
>

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

In article <HTlzc.9325$Y3.1164@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:

> And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive XM is
> useless.

Why? It receives XM.

Oh, you top-posted. You made everyone who wanted to, work to follow
what the hell you were talking about. No doubt you referred to this:

> > with ads. So what's the deal? It might look like a good deal now with
all
> > the stations but if XM becomes the standard, like cable, and there's no
> > competition, the price will go through the roof and so will the
advertising.
>
> And then you stop paying the subscription fee, and move on to something
> else.
>
> Until then, listen to the ad-free music stations and enjoy.


And then your response was:

> And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive XM is
> useless.


So NOW it makes sense, taken in order. You obviously have never
bothered to figure out that top-posting is bad.

Anyway, so what if you spent $100 on a receiver? Over 36 months, that's
less than $3/month. Add that to the $10/month you're paying for
service, and now you've paid $13/month for service over those 36 months.

And then you throw it out, because it's turned to crap.

As long as you know what you're doing and run the numbers, it doesn't
matter.

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <HTlzc.9325$Y3.1164@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:
>
>> And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive
>> XM is useless.
>
> Why? It receives XM.
>
> Oh, you top-posted. You made everyone who wanted to, work to follow
> what the hell you were talking about. No doubt you referred to this:
>
>>> with ads. So what's the deal? It might look like a good deal now
>>> with all the stations but if XM becomes the standard, like cable,
>>> and there's no competition, the price will go through the roof and
>>> so will the advertising.
>>
>> And then you stop paying the subscription fee, and move on to
>> something else.
>>
>> Until then, listen to the ad-free music stations and enjoy.
>
>
> And then your response was:
>
>> And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive
>> XM is useless.
>
>
> So NOW it makes sense, taken in order. You obviously have never
> bothered to figure out that top-posting is bad.
>
> Anyway, so what if you spent $100 on a receiver? Over 36 months,
> that's less than $3/month. Add that to the $10/month you're paying
> for service, and now you've paid $13/month for service over those 36
> months.
>
> And then you throw it out, because it's turned to crap.
>
> As long as you know what you're doing and run the numbers, it doesn't
> matter.

And if it comes with the stock system in the car, it's a wash as far as the
hardware cost is concerned.

Re: XM Radio In Accord Questions
 

Turned to crap? Do you mean it is failing? I would expect it to not fail
in 20 years.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-C19E10.17445814062004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <HTlzc.9325$Y3.1164@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Aron" <drenkav1912@earthlink.ten> wrote:
>
> > And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive XM
is
> > useless.
>
> Why? It receives XM.
>
> Oh, you top-posted. You made everyone who wanted to, work to follow
> what the hell you were talking about. No doubt you referred to this:
>
> > > with ads. So what's the deal? It might look like a good deal now
with
> all
> > > the stations but if XM becomes the standard, like cable, and there's
no
> > > competition, the price will go through the roof and so will the
> advertising.
> >
> > And then you stop paying the subscription fee, and move on to something
> > else.
> >
> > Until then, listen to the ad-free music stations and enjoy.
>
>
> And then your response was:
>
> > And then that extra you spent on a receiver because it can receive XM
is
> > useless.
>
>
> So NOW it makes sense, taken in order. You obviously have never
> bothered to figure out that top-posting is bad.
>
> Anyway, so what if you spent $100 on a receiver? Over 36 months, that's
> less than $3/month. Add that to the $10/month you're paying for
> service, and now you've paid $13/month for service over those 36 months.
>
> And then you throw it out, because it's turned to crap.
>
> As long as you know what you're doing and run the numbers, it doesn't
> matter.
>