response 50 of 76:

Mar 14 19:14 UTC 2002

The $10/month is instead of wasting time with commercials.

response 52 of 76:

Mar 15 00:07 UTC 2002

What is BFE?

response 54 of 76:

Mar 15 15:06 UTC 2002

I'm skeptical.  A lot of cable TV networks were commercial free at first,
too, but that didn't last long.  Now you pay a subscription fee to watch
commercial breaks longer than those on broadcast TV.

response 56 of 76:

Mar 15 16:30 UTC 2002

Do you have a VCR?

response 58 of 76:

Mar 17 16:18 UTC 2002

Heh, I remember hearing BFE as a child although I didnt know what it 
stood for until later. Where would something like that come from? "Butt 
Fuck, Egypt" It makes no sense. 

response 60 of 76:

Mar 19 06:47 UTC 2002

Stupid f*ckers.  Hopefully, they'll get slapped down.

response 66 of 76:

Mar 19 21:21 UTC 2002

If I remember some of the more intelligent-sounding Slashdot 
commentary, Sirius may actually have a case here because they are a 
licensed service, analogous to TV or FM radio, while 802.11 wireless
users are unlicensed.  However, as STeve pointed out, there are 
maybe one million 802.11 wireless devices loose in the wild, 
so it's a bit late to be thinking about locking the barn door.
 
Another commentator suggested that Sirius is finding out that it 
is very difficult to receive satellite signals without a directional
antenna; this writer said that XM spent maybe a quarter of a billion
dollars putting up terrestrial towers to reinforce its signal in 
high-density areas.   The suggestion was that Sirius may have spent
several billion dollars to start up a service which has unsurmountable
technical problems.

response 68 of 76:

Mar 19 21:35 UTC 2002

Re #66: It's illegal to intentionally interfere with a licensed 
service.  If you're emitting a legal signal and it interferes with 
someone else's receiver, though, I think they have to accept that under 
Part 15.  For example, it'd be illegal for me to jam a local TV 
station, but if my amateur radio transceiver (transmitting on a 
frequency I'm legally entitled to transmit on) overloads the front end 
of my friend's TV and interferes with his reception, that's not 
illegal.  This is why Part 15 devices often have a message on the back 
saying something like, "this device must accept any interference, 
including interference that may cause undesired operation."

Of course, it's possible the rules 802.11 is permitted under specify 
that the devices cannot cause harmful interference, in which case they 
may have a case.  Anyone have an 802.11 device that has some relevent 
legal boilerplate in the manual?

response 70 of 76:

Mar 29 04:45 UTC 2002

Uhh... I was under the impression that wireless networking was using an
unregulated portion of the spectrum.  Specifically, it is the band used by
microwave ovens, heart pacemakers and similar devices.

response 72 of 76:

Mar 29 15:49 UTC 2002

Salon has a recent story reporting that Clear Channel is starting 
to get some unwanted attention from the FCC and from the anti-trust 
world.  The FCC is investigating allegations that Clear Channel is 
using shell corporations to conceal its ownership of some radio 
stations whose acquisition would be in violation of what feeble
restrictions remain on the concentration of ownership.
Antitrust interest is being piqued by Clear Channel throwing its 
weight around in the concert promotion business.

response 74 of 76:

Mar 29 16:13 UTC 2002

Here's a business article on XM satellite radio which gives some 
customer numbers:
 
http://musicdish.com/mag/?id=5575
 
In a press release on their 10K filing with the SEC, XM says it 
had 28,000 subscribers at the end of 2001, and they claim that 
makes their system "the fastest selling audio product 
introduction in the last 20 years."   They say they are on track 
for 70,000 subscribers at the end of the first quarter of 2002.