It seems that directed wants to ban xm/siri from being involved in any design of sat radios or the basic chip set--is that correct and does that apply to OEM radios also?

Given the fall in retail radio sales why does directed even care aout this?

Would directed demand subsidies from the sat rad companies also?

What affect if any would the out come of this have on the directed / siri arbitration? Could she go over the issues in that arb?

When can we expect Dual Band radios!?

My question stands from the first article:
If the open access platform is allowed, is DE willing to start producing radios immediately without subsidy? If the answer is yes, they are concerned about the public. If the answer is no, they are protecting their pocketbooks and nothing else.

Additional Comments/Questions:
Kathleen: I respect you for coming to these websites (Here and the interview over at [url=http://www.siriusbuzz.com]Sirius Buzz[/url]) to voice your support for your position. Doing so, in my opinion, offers up much more credibility to your arguments, unlike the offers to people like Georgetown Partners and Chester Davenport, who never even return a phone call or email). I only appologize that some of the people on these boards are so immature and cannot pose an argument intelligently.

What you are saying: Sirius can impose certain requirements, as long as they are done accross the board? Meaning:
1) Sirius can either give away or sell or subsidize their chipsets as they see fit... as long as they do it fairly and evenly with all manufacturers.
2) Sirius can impose stipulations requiring minimum standards on the COMPANIES that manufacture their goods; i.e. 24-hour customer service line, minimum quality standard checks, etc, etc.

What if Sirius wanted to produce their own radio? If they want to dictate the design, specifications, etc. Of course, they are not manufactures, so they must contract with a manufacturer... what options do they have in this case?

As I said over on the Sirius Buzz forums, I think eventually the open access is a great thing for Sirius, as long as it is done correctly. But in the near term, is it really going to mean anything?

Again, thank you for coming here to voice your opinions and support your cause. Even I do not agree with you completely, I have to respect you for having the courage to come here and stand up for USE and yourself. Thank you.

Mrs Sohn, I appologize if most people are missing your name in this article. Some of us feel very passionately about Sirius and seeing as how your proposals are so fair, it is hard to get angry at you when Kathleen makes such an inviting target. (No offense Kathleen).

I applaud you Gigi for coming here as well, as well has having those fair, impartial proposals I mentioned above. I wanted to ask you a question: How do you feel about the self serving interests getting involved with this case? I am not talking about USE, I am talking about Georgetown Partners requesting 20%, black congressmen saying that Sirius should give up 35% for black owners, the hispanic coalition coming out for 15% for hispanic owners, Directed Electronics and NAB trying to mandate inclusion of HD recievers that THEY wont even subsidize into Sirius recievers. Based on your views, do these people have a chance of getting anything?

There is a reason for all of the numbers you give. Can you tell us how you came up with those? Thank you!

If the requirement for HD radio was included with open access, would the subsidy payment to uBiquity be paid by Sirius/XM or by the radio manufacturer, or would they not be required to pay this subsidy if they are forced to add this technology?

Also, how much bulkier will the HD chipset make our current XM/Sirius units? As an Inno user that goes portable often, will I now be carrying a big brick to add AM/FM and an HD radio that I do not even want? Or will this only be required on the home/car dock?

USE- you failed in the partnership with Sirius (even with a free chipset!) now get over it and go back to building cordless phones!

For Ms. Sohn:
(1) Why is Public Knowledge the only consumer group that regularly participates in FCC proceedings that supports the merger? Are CFA, Consumers Union, Free Press and Common Cause all wrong?
(2) Would you agree that allowing XM and Sirius to merge will decrease competition in the satellite radio market? What will be the impact of this merger on potential subscribers?
(3) Isn't the fact that XM and Sirius (in their merger application) offered to subject the merged firm to price caps an admission that the merged company could raise prices if it wanted to without worrying about losing customers?
(4) What is your view on XM and Sirius refusing not producing a consumer friendly interoperable radio? Do you think its right that this was one of the reasons the DOJ found no competition between XM and Sirius and therefore okayed the merger?
(5) What do you think of the DOJ's decision? Doesn't DOJ's view of the market as very broad undermine the foundation for the FCC's broadcast ownership rules and open the door to future mergers you might oppose? If XM and Sirius compete with terrestrial, internet, iPods and even technologies not yet created, why can't a radio or tv company own more stations than currently allowed, or why can't Apple buy the merged XM/Sirius, or the merged XM/Sirius buy slacker?

Anonnymous Coward:
Directed Electronics has nothing to do with this conversation. Mrs Wallman is a representative for US Electronics.

US Electronics is the one that currently is in arbitration with Sirius.

DIRECTED Electronics is a completely different company that is responsible for the HD radio push. Mrs Wallman is not associated with them.

For both companies...Surprisingly, both XM and Sirius have several blind subscribers, including myself. Would US Electronics be open to the idea of including some sort of text-to-speech option in the new receivers so that those of us who are blind can use the menus as well as "look at" the display data (title, artist, etc.) on our own? Second, for both guests, how much would this raise manufacturing expenses if text-to-speech were made a requirement?

I know I can get a cell phone which has the TTS capabilities fairly inexpensively through my cell provider, so I'm guessing Satellite Radio could do this pretty easily as well. I realize that there's a difference between open access for manufacturers, and equal access for subscribers, but I see no reason why both our interests can't be met.

For both -- when do you believe the FCC will get off their dead asses and approve the deal (rephrase if appropriate).

"When can we expect Dual Band radios!?"

When bananas grow on apple trees... a really good question to ask her is what's your shoe size?? and do you think it is proportional to your intelligence?? really deep thought there...

"For both -- when do you believe the FCC will get off their dead asses and approve the deal (rephrase if appropriate)"

substitute fucking dead asses for dead asses... .

What color panties are you wearing???

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/23/smbusiness/whos_stealing_intro.fsb/
Dealers who sell products without a manufacturer's consent are part of the gray market, a growing group of unauthorized, mainly internet-based vendors who circumvent channels to offer rock-bottom prices. They're not stealing the products they sell, but they are taking market share from authorized dealers who often provide guidance and service crucial to the reputation of high-end products. Ultimately, they're devaluing [the target product] in the marketplace--most sell them at 30% discounts or more. Legitimate dealers cannot afford to sell them at those low prices and provide customer service. Customers who buy gray-market goods often blame the manufacturer when a warranty isn't honored or when they can't get support, all of which hurts a company's brand value.
***************************************************************

Why does Kathleen Wallman wish to see satellite radios sold in the gray market? I understand Kathleen Wallman is interested in an 'independent supervisory and enforcement mechanism'; is her company U.S. Electronics willing to pay for this 'mechanism'? I further understand Kathleen Wallman compares Verizon's participation in the FCC's auction for open access bandwidth to her quest for open access to satellite radio bandwidth; does Kathleen Wallman at least recognize that the satellite radio companies didn't bargain for open access when they paid the FCC for their bandwidth, but the Block C participants did?

Looking forward to the show this afternoon and to drilling down on the open device condition that we've advocated at the FCC and the logic behind it. - KW

My question is for Public Knowledge. I would be interested to know whether they would support, as part of a non-commercial set-aside requirement, a stipulation that would prevent all the available set-aside channels from being gobbled up by the large groups which already own hundreds of NCE FM stations throughout the country. While I do not entirely seek to deny access to those large station group owners, I would like to see no more than 2/5 or 1/2 of the set-aside available to large owners, and those groups that own 10 or fewer full-power FM (whether commercial-band or NCE) should be given priority access to the set-aside. I think this would help to ensure a diversity of voices. Furthermore, in terms of assisting small businesses and/or minority and/or female owned businesses, I think that further priority should be given to those applicants who own no terrestrial licenses (AM, FM, TV) at all. Those who have no licenses should be able to get in line ahead of all others who seek set-aside capacity.
Also, in cases such as the Clear Channel/XM deal, can you clarify whether Public Knowledge believes that the bandwidth leased by CC is subject to the non-commercial set-aside? (For example, is the set-aside calculated based on the entire bandwidth of the provider? Or is the leased portion to CC subtracted first?) I think it should be based on the entire bandwidth of each provider, personally.
One last thing - due to the limited channel count (128) available to legacy Sirius receivers, I believe that for a period of at least five years, set-aside programmers should be given the option to be carried as part of the 128 channel lineup, on the condition that they may be interrupted for sports between 6 PM and Midnight, Eastern Time. (In this case, programmers should only be charged 75% of the normal rate for carriage, as only 75% of their broadcast day is guaranteed.) Otherwise, Sirius would be likely to add all set-aside channels only for newer radios, and those with older equipment would not receive them at all. XM is not a problem, they can handle over 200 channels without difficulty.

That was an awesome show!! Thank you Kathleen and Gigi!!!!!

Ryan, GREAT job. Serious

Sorry I missed the opportunity to ask. But one question I would ask "Little Miss Diode" is why should satellite radio be held to interoperability, when the mobile phone carriers are not pressured to do so, and that makes it nearly impossible to switch carriers. New carrier= new equipment. Obviously, this is a far bigger issue than SatRad interoperability.

But of course, the company you shill for would not profit by such a move.