Replies to post #2453 on Sirius XM Holdings Inc (SIRI)

[bluebird50]

Great Reply - I agree on all about downplaying. I agree with 4.6 to 1 ratio as well they should walk away and let xm tank - unless they are headed that way and microsoft decided to buy them? That would take care of that issue (merger that is). I think the merge talk would be an underhanded way to get them to divert there attention why sirius continued to gain market share, causing them to slack off some more. Just a warped view there. But totally plausible in todays spectrum of business. As far as sats, I thought xm was stationary and sirius was orbiting? Reason being is I used to live in a mountain town and at certain periods of the day my radio would have a bit of static. So I remember researching it and that was the case I thought? Thanks again for your post. And truly under the synapsis of valuation of xm vs sirius. Money is better off in xm if the merger goes through, simple math.

[cato___]

Geostationary satellites are above the equator and in orbits that are more than 24,000 miles away. Therefore, power budgets being what they are, one needs a high gain dish antenna to receive their signals.

Sirius' birds are in very low earth orbit. Thats how you get away without having to aim a dish antenna at them. Since they are in low orbit, they move across the sky very quickly. As they move through the sky, the Sirius receiver switches to the one with the strongest signal, sort of the way a cell phone switches to the strongest cell tower....only with Sirius, its the "cell tower (i.e. sats)" that are doing the bulk of the moving....I suspect that XM sats work in a similar manner.