Remember when I said internet in your car may come sooner than you think? Well guess what, Chrysler is saying it will be the first car company to provide in-car Internet access - availability will come later this year.
The third-largest U.S. automaker will have the capability added to existing vehicles by dealers beginning this year, and later will be factory-installed on the assembly line.
The Washington Post is reporting that Chrysler will use a cellular signal and a mobile phone account to give passengers access to the web.
"We want to make the radio itself a WiFi port," said Frank Klegon, Chrysler's product development chief.
And this is just the beginning of Chrysler's connectivity plans. Hey DOJ, are you watching this?
[Washington Post via Autoblog, Engadget]
>> The Washington Post is reporting that Chrysler will use a cellular signal and a mobile phone account to give passengers access to the web.
>> Hey DOJ, are you watching this?
The inference is that this is "yet another competitor" for satellite radio. I would HOPE, however, they are giving no account to this development as it has absolutely nothing to do with the competitive landscape for satellite radio.
Over the vast majority of the country, this "internet connection" will be nonexistent or at dialup rates -- hardly enough to consider streaming to be viable. Furthermore, the inconsistency of the signal would give new meaning to the term "dropout".
One day, cellular Internet may prove to be competition for sat radio, but we're not there, and nowhere close, at this point. It surely makes no sense to allow the creation of a monopoly based on what may someday be.
This is competition but only as much as the radio on cell phones now. You still need to pay some crazy 70-100 dollars a month for unlimited data plans so you can stream for "ok" radio stations. The only thing I see is that alot of people pay for those plans now and that is what makes it interesting.
I still can't believe people pay for those plans.
The reason people pay for it is because there companys expense it, and there companys expense it because they want to be able to call you whenever they want. Its a win-win-win situation. except for Sat-Radio which doesn't really work with mobile-phones.
The reason people pay for it is because there companys expense it, and there companys expense it because they want to be able to call you whenever they want. Its a win-win-win situation. except for Sat-Radio which doesn't really work with mobile-phones.
Chris A, The reason people pay for it is because there company's expense it, and there company's expense it because they want to be able to call you whenever they want. Its a win-win-win situation. except for Sat-Radio which doesn't really work with mobile-phones.
Sorry about the dup posts...my computer isnt having a good day.
People get those plans because companies expense them. Well that helps but just because they are expensed doesn't mean people will buy them. I have an unlimited data plan on my phone because I am in the office 1 day a week maybe 2. I would rather not have to check e-mail when I get home so I do it throughout the day.
Music on it is not important to me.
Chrysler management team is getting better I must say with this offering. Hopefully they continue to grow better.
Stack, you seem to have a hard time grasping this concept: regardless of whether or not these new things are perfect competitors, they are still eating away at satellite radio's already-weak competitive moat. I can guarantee you that I would be extremely concerned about mobile internet threats if I were a shareholder (which I'm not).
And you do realize that "dial-up rates" is more bandwidth than a typical satellite radio channel, right?
Stack is in total denial, and will never accept any argument, no matter how valid. He's mos def a /0 kind of guy...
There's nothing stopping you from doing this today! Here's but one example of a cellular router: http://www.junxion.com/product/
Oh, and a special message for "Stack Pointer":
The Internet has proven itself already as potentially the greatest communication service ever invented. Even a child can see the possibilities of a widespread, wireless Internet. Pandora in a car? They're already showing it.
>>> Stack, you seem to have a hard time grasping this concept: regardless of whether or not these new things are perfect competitors, they are still eating away at satellite radio's already-weak competitive moat. I can guarantee you that I would be extremely concerned about mobile internet threats if I were a shareholder (which I'm not).
The question for DOJ, though, is whether they are in fact perfect competitors. Mobile Internet "threats" are the least of sat radio's problems at this point. I've not seen any indication that either BMW or DCX intends to implement streaming of audio content with their in-vehicle Internet.
This hasn't even addressed the problem that these streams do not themselves, at this point, have a viable business model. Were it to become popular, these organizations would have to deal with the same problems XM/SIRI have -- i.e., how to generate sufficient revenue to support the operation (which would have to include royalty payments). At this point, the availability of these streams is nothing more than a fringe arrangement.
>>> And you do realize that "dial-up rates" is more bandwidth than a typical satellite radio channel, right?
Depends on the stream, but I believe both XM and SIRI stream at at least 64kbps. The problem with dialup isn't so much that you can't get a peak rate of greater than 64kbps, but how consistent would be such access, and in my experience, it is lousy. While you can sometimes get broadband rates, the next instant you can fall back to 128kbps (or less); the next instant you may lose signal altogether. The switching between cells is another issue that is as yet unresolved; you will almost always experience substantial dropouts when moving from cell to cell -- to my knowledge, nobody has overcome this problem yet.
I'm not saying it won't some day be "competition". Today, it isn't, and in the next few years, it won't be. 10 years down the road will be a different time and place. Before it becomes any threat to sat radio, you're going to have to have consistent, nationwide (not just Interstate-only) access at reasonably high speeds AND have receivers in cars that can do something with the stream AND have content providers which can earn a profit (i.e., charge a subscription fee, plus the Internet access charges from a separate providers) after paying for content.
There just isn't any "there" there at this point.
Stack: "I'm not saying it won't some day be "competition". Today, it isn't, and in the next few years, it won't be. 10 years down the road will be a different time and place."
So, why not make the Sirius/Xm merger the point of competition for looking towards the future. They granted the licenses for the companies years before the landscape of competition turned to what it is today...and look where it is today. Mp3, CDs, Wi-Fi, etc. These companies can merge and still not be in the clear of getting past these in people's cars and homes. If the FCC and DOJ would see that 10 years down the line IS the way to look instead of today, they'll set things up for easier/faster decisions in the future.
>>>>>>So, why not make the Sirius/Xm merger the point of competition for looking towards the future. They granted the licenses for the companies years before the landscape of competition turned to what it is today...and look where it is today. Mp3, CDs, Wi-Fi, etc.
Here we go again. You listed MP3, CDs, Wi-Fi -- Wi-FI is a nonexistent technology insofar as getting content to your vehicle, CDs existed at the time the original concept of satellite radio was envisioned, and MP3s are merely an extension of CDs (prerecorded content).
What has changed? Not a thing -- other than iPods make it more convenient to haul around the CDs you want to listen to.
Now, why not assume these technologies are GOING to evolve? Because we're talking about handing the sat radio companies an unregulated monopoly, which cannot be undone, on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future.
It is obvious that other technologies will, eventually, evolve. I would add that it was also obvious when XM and SIRI agreed to the terms of their licensure, yet, they were okay with it then. The big question, however, is how do the business models evolve. If you have to pay $25/month for bandwidth and another $10-15/month for the streaming service, how can one consider that "competitive" with sat radio's $13 or $15 rates?
There are just too many unanswered questions at this point to hand over monopoly power to Mel karmazin (who clearly expressed his desire to have a monopoly in 2005).
Stack- you are delusional- there is no such thing as a "perfect" competitor. Besides, this is just the start. WI-MAX is coming. On top of that, there was a report on Friday that a company has learned how to extend Wi-Fi up to 60 miles. Certain cities now offer and others are considering, free wi-fi within city limits. Its only going to become more prevalent and more common.
Stack- you just keep denying the obvious. Sat. radio is in trouble, merger or no merger...
>>> Besides, this is just the start. WI-MAX is coming.
Of course it is. Nobody has said it isn't. But it will be years before it provides the kind of coverage necessary to support this application.
>>> Certain cities now offer and others are considering, free wi-fi within city limits.
And most which have tried it have failed, miserably. http://www.slate.com/id/2174858/
The idea that cities are going to purchase all this bandwidth and GIVE it to their residents is Utopian, but silly. It just isn't going to happen. Maybe GOOG or someone will figure out a way to do it, but you can bet if they are going to have to get their advertising front-and-center. The reality is that bandwidth is not free, and never will be.
>>> Its only going to become more prevalent and more common.
Again, this is inconsistent with what is actually happening. The number of failed attempts at "free" wifi is staggering, and more cities are abandoning plans than are pursuing plans at this time.
That's not even the problem, however. Because there is still no business model. You have to first get your own bandwidth (which may be free within a city, but is going to cost money outside a very limited range), then find a content provider that has a business model, then purchase the content. And you have to have some reasonably well-functioning device in the vehicle (i.e., OEM installed receivers, tightly integrated receivers, which are still years down the road, if you had a functioning wimax network today, which you don't).
Should "free" bandwidth ever become available, such that vehicles are routinely using it to receive content, the size of the pipeline required to deliver this streaming would be huge (read as "expensive"). Cities are simply not in a position to fund that cause.
The fact remains that streaming via a point-to-point protocol is a highly inefficient means of getting content to vehicles, and for that reason (and many others) it is not likely to become prevalent in the coming decade.
If you want to consider this "competition" then SDARS should be saying everything that delivers entertainment is competition. I used to watch 4 hours of TV/night before I got sat radio, now I watch none and listen to XM instead. Is that competition for cable? Should the cable companies be allowed to merge into one giant monopoly because of the competition presented from XM/Sirius?
You need to look at their direct competitors otherwise your argument is unending. Books compete for my free time as do video games, movies, even going out with friends is competition for my entertainment time. Where do you draw the line? Most everyone that posts here claims that SDARS competes with FM but then say they haven't listened to FM since getting SDARS and would never go back. How is that competition? How is FM a substitute when the people making that claim also refute it in the same breath?
>>> Stack- you just keep denying the obvious. Sat. radio is in trouble, merger or no merger...
I'm certainly not denying that -- I've believed it for some time. Sirius has been in trouble since it was trading at 0.39/share. XM's problems, while more recent, are less severe, but are nevertheless major problems.
I would not put money in either company at this point.
Look out Sat Radio!
WIth this sort of thing, we can listen to great Internet Radio stations for FREE! Thousands of choices!!! Way better than the channels on XM & Sirius!