U.S. Electronics (USE) is continuing to encourage the FCC to have an "open device" mandate when considering approval for the Sirius-XM merger.
In an ex parte filing made public today, USE cites recent articles from The Los Angeles Times, The Miami Herald, as well as blog posts from Public Knowledge, SiriusBuzz, and yes, even Orbitcast.
Here's a snippet from the LA Times article, which pretty much sums it up nicely:
"...the FCC should require the same kind of openness from XM and Sirius as it has started demanding from some wireless companies. It should direct the merged company to open its service to any manufacturer wanting to build compatible devices, and then let customers make their own choices."Sadly, my last name was spelled wrong in the filing, so I can't show my kids when they get older "look, daddy was in an ex parte filing!" But, don't worry, that doesn't change my stance on the issue.
-- March 31, The Los Angeles Times
All rib jabbing aside, I firmly do believe that having an open access policy - as long as the devices comply to 'do-no-harm' and authentication requirements - would not only be beneficial to consumers, but ultimately to the companies themselves.
[View FCC Filing (PDF)]
I don't have an issue with open access either. It would drive down the cost of hardware, spur on innovative hardware, and hopefully improve the pathetic online software for listening to Sirius online. XM's online app. is much better than Sirius' crappy UI (I subscribe to both). I say, open the floodgates and let innovation take its course.
The link in your article to SB is malformed. It should be;
http://siriusbuzz.com/open-access-what-it-means-to-the-merger.php
The open access question involves more than meets the eye. On face value it would be a good thing, but what guarantee do the satrad companies have that their signal is not being pirated by some invidual who, given the design format, is able work up a way around the subscription requirement. The satrad companies would then not make a cent on those listeners. It wouldn't be a bad thing if satrad was free, but currently it is not. You can bet that the Chinese would jump on that opportunity. Unlocked receivers would flood the market in no time. On the other hand, if a bulletproof means of validating the subscription status of each and every receiver is devised then open access would be absolutely wonderful for the consumer.
Don't forget what happen to 3dfx !
Remember how much better DirecTV hardware was (especially the DirecTivos) when you had various manufacturers competing on UI and features than the crap they've been coming out with lately? It CAN and HAS been done with subscription service, that issue is a red herring.
If inter-operable radios would have been available from the start the merger would never have been tried...
@Anon Thanks for catching that, I fixed the link.
P2A3W4E5, can you please explain your 3dfx refrence?? I'm curious how that ties into this open access debate? And yes I thought i did remember what happened to 3dfx
Sirius is in the broadcasting business not the radio business.
Sirius pays more for the radio in most cases than they sell it for.
Cost would not go down with others making the radio.
What is in the radio (chips) is like a trade secret and must remain secret or Sirius is out of business.
Ryan, I think it's completely shameful that the FCC has not made a decision yet. *sigh*
@John
You obviously do not understand what competition brings to the table in terms of hardware. With more people making radios chip prices fall. With more companies making radios features improve as does the hardware. With more companies making radios prices fall because competition ALWAYS holds pricing in check.
Sirius and XM only sell radios at a loss because the total lack of competition and volume keep prices artificially high. Sirius and XM do NOT have to keep their chips a secret and they currently don't. Hardware is licensed for manufacturing every day while patented designs and architectures are protected.
You don't have a clue what you are even talking about.
shamefull?? We need a stronger word than that. More than a year and misfiling of a petition on purpose so they do not have to address makes me think we are looking at a crime.
shamefull?? We need a stronger word than that. More than a year and misfiling of a petition on purpose so they do not have to address it makes me think we are looking at a crime.
new filing today from uselectronics and ryan it mentions the mis-hap with your name