Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Heated Debate.

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135

    Heated Debate.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/03/1...od_dealjournal

  2. #2
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    There was a resume posted here, now deleted. Also deleted: some documents posted without comment.
    Please don’t post personal information about anyone here, and we like your comments far more than cut-and-pasted documents. Also keep in mind that personal attacks and swear words aren’t allowed. But you knew that.
    Thanks. Keep the good conversation coming. –HNM.

    Comment by Heidi Moore - March 16, 2008 at 8:30 pm
    Does anyone think that given the FCC mandate to make interoperable radios and the years that have passed since Sirius and XM spent millions on it that it was not done?
    Years ago Sirius and XM told the FCC when asked by the FCC that they had complied with the mandate.
    The integrated Circuits are the radio and they are furnished to the radio manufactures by Sirius and XM.
    What is in those chips is secret and only Sirius and XM know what is in them.
    Sirius said the Chips were done years ago and that they were going to be used,
    When chips are made cost is not much of a factor after the design as we see with all that is in Cell Phones today.

    From what i see Mr. Hartleib is for the merger but not at the price because Sirius has a better market share and with those radios being turned on for both Sirius and XM it can be expected that the same market share % would switch to Sirius from XM.
    What radio comes with the car is in many cases not what the customer wants. If all it takes is a phone call for a software download and the service is switched i expect millions would switch.

    Mr Hartleib is saying from what i see that he is not happy that the shareholders were not informed about the radio and if they were they would think Sirius would take subscribers from XM making XM worth less that what Sirius is offering for XM.

    Comment by Sirius stockholder - March 16, 2008 at 10:32 pm
    I am also a huge Sirius shareholder and i hope MH does not go away.

    As far as being put to sleep by MH not me not when i have so much invested in Sirius.

    Comment by Sirius shareholder - March 16, 2008 at 10:57 pm
    What Heidi Moore is referring to are documents that I have filed with the FCC on Docket 07-57 and are part of the formal record. One of which is a job resume by a gentleman who worked on adding XM’s technology (AAC+ Codec) to Sirius’ second generation chip sets. This was completed in 2003.

    Some may argue that the project was not completed and/or incurred difficulties, but this is not the case as the other document I attempted to post was a publicly available patent which patents AAC+ Codec (XM’s technology) on Sirius chipsets. The job resume of this gentleman goes on to say “As a core member in digital backend firmware development, continued working on a satellite radio project called SDARS. Work focused on the 2nd generation chipset development for Sirius Radio receivers. Responsibilities included:
    * Firmware migration onto a new all-in-one baseband chip
    * Adding AAC+ Audio Codec to the 2nd generation SDARS chipset
    * Working out receiver value-adding features together with customers”

    “FROM THE PATENT APPLICATION” included “[0006] it should be noted that this disclosure is not limited to the efficient download of firmware images alone, but may be applied to any configuration image which is typically stored in non-volatile memory, such as the hardware configuration bit files for a Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD) or Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). CPLD and FPGA devices utilize a form of non-volatile memory, on or off-chip, to store the hardware configuration data.”
    What this means is that the all-in-one decoding chip for both services is included in millions of radios in the market place today. Sirius’ executives have confirmed this to me personally as well as in their response to the FCC’s Request For Additional Interoperability Information where they state their radios would need a modification to the tuner portion of the radio only, all other components and hardware would remain unchanged. Their antennas are interoperable, therefore, if the companies were to download a firmware update (from the satellites to the receivers) to millions of receivers and enable the radio to tune in approximately 1% of additional spectrum, consumers could switch between services without the need to purchase additional hardware…as I have stated for approximately 2 years now. These radios would need to be certified by the FCC as they would be operating on a frequency they were not licensed for at the time. Although the FCC has created rules in anticipation of software defined radio (SDR) where these devices can be changed on the fly via firmware updates and the entire tuning portion and decoding portion is software based. Therefore, certification should not be an issue. I believe this information was material and relevant and should have been provided to shareholders prior to the shareholder vote.

    I have requested, in writing, from the companies to answer definitively whether with any firmware updates the radios are indeed capable of interoperability. Despite a promised meeting in writing with the General Counsel of Sirius Satellite Radio, someone must have changed their mind as it has not occurred. I am asking the companies to describe in detail how they are in compliance with the requirement that their radios permit end users to access all SDARS services and how they are in compliance with their Joint Development Agreement to develop a unified standard for satellite radio

    Comment by Michael Hartleib - March 16, 2008 at 11:43 pm
    Post a Comment
    Name : Comment:

  3. #3
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    I appreciate everyone’s opinion, but in fairness to Mr. Karmazin, he has cut costs and reigned in the absurd spending of both Sirius and XM. Howard Stern was the Hail Mary for Sirius Satellite Radio and it worked. But you must understand, this was done before Mr. Karmazin was on Board as CEO.

    Personally, I am not happy with stock options being granted to executives when shareholders are suffering with a sub $3 stock. I think it would instill confidence in shareholders if middle management and upper management were to purchase at these levels – instead we’ve seen multiple FCC filings for disbursement of shares.

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I have no affiliation with the NAB or any other entity involved in this merger proceeding. I am an individual that is willing to share the fact that I have a substantial financial investment in the securities of both Sirius and XM Satellite Radio. If it weren’t for the size of my investment, I would not spend the time, energy and money I have to fight for what I believe is right.

    I, like most of you, want this merger to be consummated as soon as possible. Although I am extremely troubled that the management of these companies have denied their shareholders and consumers relevant and material facts that could have great impact on shareholders’ decisions, votes and valuations of this deal. I personally believe this deal is too expensive for Sirius shareholders. As I’ve said all along - - - I believe in the merger “as a concept” but I am not happy with the “valuation” of this deal.

    In a matter of days, there will be formal oppositions filed to the settlement hearing regarding the Greg Brockwell v Sirius et al case. I urge all of you to protect your interest and either file a formal opposition to this settlement as there is no benefit to members of the class or at the very least – opt out to preserve your rights and interests in a court of law.

    They intend to notify members of the class via a published notice in the Wall Street Journal. I will argue as this is a paid subscription publication with limited distribution, the majority of members of the class will be denied their right of proper notification. If any of you would like additional details, you can contact me directly at (714) 910-7528. I have not hidden my identity. I am truly trying to protect shareholders’ best interest and appreciate everyone’s input on this issue and despite many professional obligations I have given all of you a direct line to speak to me personally.

    Comment by Michael Hartleib - March 13, 2008 at 12:33 am

  4. #4
    clueless is offline
    Senior Member
    clueless's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Location: New York Posts: 251
    What is the point of this post? Is this a conversation from another website?

  5. #5
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    Last edited by hartleib1; 03-18-2008 at 12:35 AM.

  6. #6
    clueless is offline
    Senior Member
    clueless's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Location: New York Posts: 251
    I guess I am just confused why the information is posted on their site and again here on this site with no explanation? I am honestly asking...am I missing something?

    All I see on that site is what appears to be you posting documents and articles as comments....and then again here.

    Can I ask another question? I see you posting all over hell about interoperable receivers...do you feel like no one cares about this issue?
    Last edited by clueless; 03-18-2008 at 02:15 AM.

  7. #7
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    I do not believe that most people understand the importance of this issue. Clarity will be forthcoming.

  8. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •