John S. wrote:

In fact we were in a car. The lost signals were so frequent that we
switched to regular radio, and found the music we were looking for.
They will have to stabilize reception and improve the selections before

paid satellite radio is of any interest to me.

You were not a "cooperative user" (to use a term coined during the
development
of early mobile satellite systems. Your experience would have been
radically different
if you had had a clear line of sight to the satellite(s).

RK

Good grief. I had no idea people have to worry about line of sight with
satellite radio. That is a *major* turn off.

Steve

rkhalona wrote:
John S. wrote:

In fact we were in a car. The lost signals were so frequent that we
switched to regular radio, and found the music we were looking for.
They will have to stabilize reception and improve the selections before

paid satellite radio is of any interest to me.

You were not a "cooperative user" (to use a term coined during the
development
of early mobile satellite systems. Your experience would have been
radically different
if you had had a clear line of sight to the satellite(s).

RK

Well, yes I can be "not cooperative" and even downright cranky when an
over-hyped improvement doesn't work as advertised. Satellite radio
seems to suffer from the same shortcomings that satellite phones
suffered. Once users actually have to work with the new radio (or
phone) then the shortcomings become clear. For those of us with access
to a reasonable number of FM & AM radio stations satellite radio is
largely a redundant and expensive toy. I suppose it could be useful
out on a flat and relatively treeless open road, but so would a folder
of good cd's.

"rkhalona" wrote in message
oups.com...
John S. wrote:

In fact we were in a car. The lost signals were so frequent that
we
switched to regular radio, and found the music we were looking for.
They will have to stabilize reception and improve the selections
before

paid satellite radio is of any interest to me.

You were not a "cooperative user" (to use a term coined during the
development
of early mobile satellite systems. Your experience would have been
radically different
if you had had a clear line of sight to the satellite(s).

Yes, but the clear line of sight becomes an issue
in the big cities and in areas with lots of trees. I
personally have DirecTV, and I'm lucky in that the
tree near to the dish is a honeylocust, so that the
signal from the birds can penetrate the dappled
shade of the honeylocust. Others I know who
wanted to make use of DirecTV had to forego it
because obtaining a clear view of the southern
sky meant they'd have to cut their trees down.
Satellite radio, it seems, looks like it might suffer
from similar (but different) limitations.

--Mike L.

Here's a link for those interested in some of the technical details of
satellite radio

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1715285B

This info is almost three years old, but it will give you some basic
information about how the system
works, including an early link budget for XM's system. You will notice
that in some areas (places like large cities, tunnels, etc) repeaters
are used
to ensure coverage. In addition, most satellite systems of this type
have *some* link margin to allow
for reasonable in-building penetration loss, which is a function of
location, construction materials, frequency
of operation, etc.

RK

wrote:
Good grief. I had no idea people have to worry about line of sight with
satellite radio. That is a *major* turn off.

Steve



It's not as bad as you might think, but if you're in an area with dense
trees, lots of tall buildings, or if you're going under a bridge or
through a tunnel, the radio will go silent.

A few months back we had a discussion about the fact they could greatly
improve the system by adding a 30 second buffer, and transmitting
everything twice to avoid most drop outs.

On 28 Jun 2005 09:22:17 -0700, "John S." wrote:



Mark S. Holden wrote:
John S. wrote:
I had my first taste of XM radio reception via satellite this past
weekend and was less than impressed because it drops the signal around
tall buildings and tall trees. For the Grundig to not have xm
capability is no great loss based on my experience.


On a portable, you'd probably have less frequent dropouts than in a car
because odds are you'll put it down in one spot while you listen.

Of course if you pick a spot that can't see the satellite, you'll have
to move or listen to something else.

In fact we were in a car. The lost signals were so frequent that we
switched to regular radio, and found the music we were looking for.
They will have to stabilize reception and improve the selections before
paid satellite radio is of any interest to me.

Sirius generally works better than XM in cars away from repeaters.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:23:37 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

John S. wrote:
I had my first taste of XM radio reception via satellite this past
weekend and was less than impressed because it drops the signal around
tall buildings and tall trees. For the Grundig to not have xm
capability is no great loss based on my experience.


On a portable, you'd probably have less frequent dropouts than in a car
because odds are you'll put it down in one spot while you listen.

Of course if you pick a spot that can't see the satellite, you'll have
to move or listen to something else.

Actually untrue. In major cities, XM has repeaters in the city proper
because all sat based services have problems with urban canyons.

Mark S. Holden wrote:

John S. wrote:

I had my first taste of XM radio reception via satellite this past
weekend and was less than impressed because it drops the signal around
tall buildings and tall trees. For the Grundig to not have xm
capability is no great loss based on my experience.


On a portable, you'd probably have less frequent dropouts than in a car
because odds are you'll put it down in one spot while you listen.

Of course if you pick a spot that can't see the satellite, you'll have
to move or listen to something else.





Depending on the market, you may have local terrestrial
repeaters to fill in weak spots where satellite isn't visible to the
receiver. We have them in Chicago, so I rarely see dropouts even
with underpasses, and similar obstacles. Over the weekend I was on
the road where terrestrial repeaters were not available. Dropouts
were moe common than in the city.

matt weber wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:23:37 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:


John S. wrote:

I had my first taste of XM radio reception via satellite this past
weekend and was less than impressed because it drops the signal around
tall buildings and tall trees. For the Grundig to not have xm
capability is no great loss based on my experience.


On a portable, you'd probably have less frequent dropouts than in a car
because odds are you'll put it down in one spot while you listen.

Of course if you pick a spot that can't see the satellite, you'll have
to move or listen to something else.


Actually untrue. In major cities, XM has repeaters in the city proper
because all sat based services have problems with urban canyons.


It is true if you're in an area that isn't served by a repeater.

In my neck of the woods, trees are more likely to be a problem than
buildings.

My wife loves the XM radio in her car. If it was in my car I'd be
trying to figure out how to improve the signal to avoid the dropouts.