No need to re-certify for Firmware updates. Interoperable Devices

2.1 FCC SDR Rules
On March 11, 2005, the FCC released a set of rules outlining an alternative method for certification of devices whose radio frequency and power characteristics can be modified by software (such devices are designated Software Defined Radio devices).1 The rules allow manufacturers who have certified under the new process to update the software on the devices without re-certifying the devices with the FCC.

The rules require any manufacturer certifying a device under the new process to take steps to prevent “unauthorized” changes to the software on the device that might alter its radio frequency and power parameters in a way that takes it out of compliance with the regulations known as FCC Part 15 regulations.2 The specific technology implemented to accomplish this task is left to the manufacturers seeking certification, although the FCC suggests several possible mechanisms that can serve as such “security measures.”3

In response to a petition from Cisco Systems, Inc., the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on April 25, 2007, making two clarifications to the rules.4 First, the FCC clarified the scope of the rules to require certification under the new process of any device that uses software to comply with the Part 15 regulations if such software is “designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer.”5 Second, the FCC stated a position regarding the use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) on SDR devices. The FCC acknowledged the use of FOSS by device manufacturers and noted some of the advantages of FOSS for the industry. However, citing concerns regarding publishing information relating to security measures, the FCC stated that a SDR device which uses FOSS to build the “security measures” protecting the software against modification would face a “high burden” during the certification process “to demonstrate that it is sufficiently secure

Brandon I agree with your view on the ford updates. Demo for Tate!

If both companies are merging and are going to make new radios that are capable of receiving both streams, isn't the interoperability issue a moot point?

All your doing is making yourself look like an ass or NAB henchmen.

I guess going forward, it wouldn't be an issue to a shareholder at this point. However, Hartleib's argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that back in the day, the failure of Sirius to disclose and release the alleged interoperability feature of some radios would have changed the dynamics of the industry. He feels that Sirius would have been able to put XMSR out of business simply by acquiring their listener base.

But I think as people have pointed out, an interoperable Sirius receiver is already a Sirius customer. All it would have done is allow a Sirius customer to defect to XMSR. Only through interoperable XMSR receivers would this argument hold any water.

Furthermore, Sirius is purchasing the spectrum, OEM deals, etc. not only the XM subscriber base. So in essence it is what you claim: "a spectrum grab". However, I don't see how the two issues are inter-related. I don't see how releasing an interoperable receiver would have benefitted the Sirius business model, and your shareholder value, more-so than attempting to consolidate the industry. Convince me.

Why then did Sirius not cry foul, and force the FCC to take action against Xm . Also why would Sirius allow Xm to violate the term of their settlement stipulation and joint development agreement?

If the agreement was to develop and bring an interoperable radio to market, wouldn't just the one on Sirius's side satisfy the requirement? Or was there language in the agreement to force each of the companies to produce a radio that was interoperable?

And just so we're clear your belief is that Sirius developed this technology into their radios? But XMSR never did it with any of their radios?

I guess what you are arguing is that it was the fiduciary responsibility of management to pursue whether XMSR was also developing a interoperable device on their end? In that case, they have no reason to cry foul if neither of the radios was made public. It's not like by not acting they were somehow harming Sirius by not enforcing the ability of XMSR subscribers to jump ship. The alleged ability for Sirus radio owners to jump to XMSR was never made public to them either. It's a zero sum game, sure they can't take XMSR's subscribers, but XM can't take theirs either. No advantage to either company.

zcurzan, let me see if I can explain this the way that it makes sence to me.

XM and Sirius were told that they needed to develop an interop reciever, which they did, though they never marketed it.

It was an agreement that stated that both companies had to agree to market the thing or else it could not be done.

XM choose not to market it because if they did, they were afraid they would loose customers to Sirius. This act alone kept interop radios from being marketed.

Michael is stating that if this is infact true, XMs refusal of bringing interop to market caused harm to Sirius.

If this is true, Michael does not have a case. Sirius attempted to bring interop to market, satisfying their feduciary responsibility. XM prevented this, and by preventing it, actually satisfied THEIR feduciary responsibility, because allowing it to come to market theoretically would have harmed the company, and thus their share holders.

I guess the only point that would remain to be proven is how hard Sirius attempted to get the FCC to force XM to "flip the switch" so to speak.

The core issue of the "magic switch" debate, is that Sirius/XM never certified their radios to be interopperable. Apparently, pointing to the ruling that Michael posted above, they dont have to. They certify them as they are and there is no need to recertify once the reconfiguration is sent via satellite to the software within the radio.

IMHO, If interopperable were out there, Sirius would have had to give up the full 25%, but because it is not, they were limited to 8%. Bringing to light the fact that interopperability actually does exist at this point via software upgrade would significantly enhance the value of both companies. Legal issues would need to be considered though, such as purgery amongst others.

Quote:

---

Bringing to light the fact that interopperability actually does exist at this point via software upgrade would significantly enhance the value of both companies. Legal issues would need to be considered though, such as purgery amongst others.

---

Yeah I got to believe that this matter was investigated completely during this merger proceeding, despite any FCC negligence alleged by Hartleib in his last FCC exparte. It's just too much of a sticking point for the FCC to simply take someones word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hartleib1

Why then did Sirius not cry foul, and force the FCC to take action against Xm . Also why would Sirius allow Xm to violate the term of their settlement stipulation and joint development agreement?

---

Because none of it is true. None of us have dual-capable receivers.

Good luck proving otherwise Hartleib.

It would behoove them and us (gosh darn it) to get some units out ASAP! especially in time for Christmas. Anybody got any info or educated guesses? Will Directed Electronics - DEIX - get a fat order very soon? IMHO, there will be some interop receivers on the market well before nine months. Especially with the open access. Maybe Pioneer will provide the first units. There should be a mad rush to get interop units out now. It would be very disappointing if they miss this X-mas sales season.

see the news story...its in there!

Plans and licensing to be available immediately. What do you think? A week or two? A month, before we can buy an interoperable receiver? IMHO, when it hits - advertising, marketing, inventory are optimum - its gonna be huge.

What's the deal with the backseat tv? There is some controversy there.

Is it ok to talk about DEIX here? Is anyone else here holding any? I hope DEIX gets a rise out of this deal. I got hammered by DEIX. I sure would like to see it turn around. I thought DEIX would be a natural to include in a portfolio that is heavy SIRI and XM. Unfortunately I'm cost-averaged in the low fives on DEIX. Last I knew, DEIX still had a big SIRI contract. It might get a bump soon.