Planet Jazz is gone and so am I...

[Terry]

I can't believe Sirius deleted Planet Jazz. They only had 3 Jazz channels
to begin with, and now they're down to 2. My choices now are "smooth" or
"ancient". I'm just wondering if anybody else cares. Maybe I was the only
one that listened to it all the time. I'm pretty certain I'm going to
cancel, but I'm wondering if I should switch to XM right away for Beyond
Jazz or wait to see what happens with the merger. I'm not looking forward
to re-installing an XM antenna on my pickup either.

I've emailed Sirius several times and the replies have been: "we're really
sorry, no plans to bring it back, etc. etc.".

[Kimba W. Lion]

Post by Terry
I can't believe Sirius deleted Planet Jazz. They only had 3 Jazz channels
to begin with, and now they're down to 2. My choices now are "smooth" or
"ancient". I'm just wondering if anybody else cares.

I do. Planet Jazz was my second-favorite channel after Pure Jazz.

It's pure idiocy to delete one of only 3 jazz channels. I think no one
there cares what's on, it's just that a Grateful Dead channel makes for
easier ad copy writing.

I'm thinking seriously not renewing when my year is up soon.

[Kevin]

Terry,
I don't see why we have to forfeit any channels when there are unused
channel numbers on the dial.
We're losing Planet Jazz for the burnt out hippie Grateful Dead channel.
It's not right.
It's great that there adding channels, but we should not have to forfeit any
existing channels.
Since I'm already ranting...how about bringing back PRI.
-Kevin

Post by Terry
I can't believe Sirius deleted Planet Jazz. They only had 3 Jazz channels
to begin with, and now they're down to 2. My choices now are "smooth" or
"ancient". I'm just wondering if anybody else cares. Maybe I was the only
one that listened to it all the time. I'm pretty certain I'm going to
cancel, but I'm wondering if I should switch to XM right away for Beyond
Jazz or wait to see what happens with the merger. I'm not looking forward
to re-installing an XM antenna on my pickup either.
I've emailed Sirius several times and the replies have been: "we're really
sorry, no plans to bring it back, etc. etc.".

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Kevin
Terry,
I don't see why we have to forfeit any channels when there are unused
channel numbers on the dial.

You're assuming that satellite radio is like analog radio, and
wherever there is an unused channel slot there is actual bandwidth
sitting there unused. Such is not the case.

There are an infinite number of slots on the dial in the sense that
Sirius can label a channel with any number they want (up to the
arbitrary limit of 224 or whatever it is that they chose). Bandwidth,
however, is quite finite. When they want to add a new "channel" they
either have to compress some of the other channels down to shoehorn
the new stream in (making everything sound worse) or they have to get
rid of another channel(s) entirely.

Don't worry - after the merger there will be plenty of "extra"
bandwidth because of all the duplicate channels they will be getting
rid of, and Planet Jazz (or something very much like it) will once
again be available.

[Kimba W. Lion]

Post by Scott in SoCal
Don't worry - after the merger there will be plenty of "extra"
bandwidth because of all the duplicate channels they will be getting
rid of, and Planet Jazz (or something very much like it) will once
again be available.

That's one of the lies that keep circulating about the merger. First of
all, no one knows what will happen to either service after a merger.
Secondly, just because there are channels that claim the same format on
both XM and Sirius doesn't mean they are duplicates. I dumped XM because
their music channels were incredibly boring.

XM has no equivalent to Sirius' ex-Planet Jazz. Why should anyone think
that an equivalent will magically appear after the hallowed merger?

Killing off Planet Jazz shows that satellite radio is moving the same way
cable TV does: Dump the niches one by one, replace them with slop that
advertises easily. With a Grateful Dead channel, Sirius gets an
instantly-recognizable logo to add to their promo material. That's more
important than actual programming.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Kimba W. Lion

Post by Scott in SoCal
Don't worry - after the merger there will be plenty of "extra"
bandwidth because of all the duplicate channels they will be getting
rid of, and Planet Jazz (or something very much like it) will once
again be available.

That's one of the lies that keep circulating about the merger. First of
all, no one knows what will happen to either service after a merger.

If no one knows, then you cannot say it is a lie.

Call it an educated guess. It certainly makes more sense than
maintaining separate versions of every channel like they have now.

Post by Kimba W. Lion
XM has no equivalent to Sirius' ex-Planet Jazz. Why should anyone think
that an equivalent will magically appear after the hallowed merger?

Because the new entity won't be so bandwidth-constrained, and whatever
value they saw in Planet Jazz that made them add it to the lineup
originally might lead them to bring it back once there's space. Just
like movie directors restore scenes that were cut out of the
theatrical release of their film because they needed to meet some
arbitrary running time goal. Those scenes reappear on the DVD.

Post by Kimba W. Lion
Killing off Planet Jazz shows that satellite radio is moving the same way
cable TV does: Dump the niches one by one, replace them with slop that
advertises easily. With a Grateful Dead channel, Sirius gets an
instantly-recognizable logo to add to their promo material. That's more
important than actual programming.

Such cynicism...

[David]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:49:34 -0700, Scott in SoCal

Post by Scott in SoCal
Because the new entity won't be so bandwidth-constrained, and whatever
value they saw in Planet Jazz that made them add it to the lineup
originally might lead them to bring it back once there's space.

They plan to run the same crap across both platforms. The merger will
yield no additional bandwidth.

[David]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:25:50 -0700, Scott in SoCal

Post by Scott in SoCal
Don't worry - after the merger there will be plenty of "extra"
bandwidth because of all the duplicate channels they will be getting
rid of, and Planet Jazz (or something very much like it) will once
again be available.

This is not true. There are no plans to do this. Besides, XM's
version of Jazz Rock Fusion Music is not the same as Sirius'.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by David

Post by Scott in SoCal
Don't worry - after the merger there will be plenty of "extra"
bandwidth because of all the duplicate channels they will be getting
rid of, and Planet Jazz (or something very much like it) will once
again be available.

This is not true. There are no plans to do this.

HTF do you know what Mel's plans are?

Post by David
Besides, XM's
version of Jazz Rock Fusion Music is not the same as Sirius'.

But XM's management will not be in charge after the merger. So if the
post-merger management has to pick one or the other, it stands to
reason that they will probably pick Sirius' flavor over XM's.

Again, educated guesswork on my part, but I think it holds water.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Terry
I can't believe Sirius deleted Planet Jazz. They only had 3 Jazz channels
to begin with, and now they're down to 2. My choices now are "smooth" or
"ancient". I'm just wondering if anybody else cares.

Nope.

[Larry Dawson]

I called today to have my subscription die at the end of this month as
my yearly renewal is on Oct. 1. I too am frustrated over the loss of
Planet Jazz, not to mention many other feeds I listened to over the
last two years that Sirius has dropped, or as they claim, merged with
other feeds. The two big 'mergers' for me, the folk and world music
feeds, as far as I'm concerned never happened. Country does not equate
folk and there's much more to world music than Latin music.

When I called, I was presented with the option of dropping my service
from yearly renewal to a monthly subscription and given free months to
get me through the rest of 2007 so my first monthly bill will not be
until Jan. 1, 2008. I figured I'd give that a try hoping that more
would be known about the Sirius/XM merger. I've subscribed to XM in the
past and had little to complain about other than they did not offer as
many non-music feeds as Sirius (the difference is lessening as Sirius
has dropped the Discovery Channel, a Public Radio feed, and pre-empts
WRN & Radio Classics with sports.) I'll be an optimist and play this
game for the rest of 2007. If nothing is known or pans out by January,
2008, I'll call it good and drop it. It just didn't make any sense to
me to pay for another year for what I see as a huge drop in service.
Nothing that has been added in the two years I have been with Sirius
has increased the value for me, just the opposite, I've lost feeds that
were of major interest to me.

P.S. I spend a great deal of time on my computer and listen to AOL
radio. Yeah, there are commercials, but there is a great diversity in
the music they offer - stuff you can't get on Sirius (Surf Rock,
British Invasion, Classic Soul, Doo Wop, Motown Sound, 18
World/International feeds, etc.) It's free and worth checking out.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Larry Dawson
***@macosx.com
http://homepage.mac.com/capnlarry/

I don't know whether it's a virtue or a vice in me, but regularly
rereading favorite books has always been one of the quasi-
religious ceremonies with which I occupy my life.
Fritz Leiber

[MidnightDad]

Post by Terry
I can't believe Sirius deleted Planet Jazz. They only had 3 Jazz channels
to begin with, and now they're down to 2. My choices now are "smooth" or
"ancient". I'm just wondering if anybody else cares. Maybe I was the only
one that listened to it all the time. I'm pretty certain I'm going to
cancel, but I'm wondering if I should switch to XM right away for Beyond
Jazz or wait to see what happens with the merger. I'm not looking forward
to re-installing an XM antenna on my pickup either.
I've emailed Sirius several times and the replies have been: "we're really
sorry, no plans to bring it back, etc. etc.".

It was foolish of you to subscribe for just a few channels. Sirius
certainly has the right (and duty) to change their lineup based on
popularity, ROI, or whatever other criteria they use. What I enjoy
most is their variety. Even though I like some channels more than
others, if they were to eliminate one, I could still justify my
subscription with all of the other channels I like. If you think XM
handles their lineup any differently, you're mistaken.

[Kimba W Lion]

Post by MidnightDad
It was foolish of you to subscribe for just a few channels.

Yeah, experience with both XM and Sirius shows that it is foolish to
expect to get what you signed up for.

But so what if it's "just a few channels"? That was more than is worth
listening to on terrestrial radio. If you got cable for ESPN and they
dropped it for SoapNet, would you have no right to be disappointed?

As a matter of fact, Comcast did drop one of the 5 channels I cared about,
so I dropped Comcast and got Dish Network. I tried XM and found it boring,
and moved to Sirius. With Sirius blandifying itself, I am considering not
renewing.

[MidnightDad]

Post by Kimba W Lion

Post by MidnightDad
It was foolish of you to subscribe for just a few channels.

Yeah, experience with both XM and Sirius shows that it is foolish to
expect to get what you signed up for.

To expect that the channels YOU like will exist in perpetuity is
foolish. They are under no obligation to carry those channels
forever.

Post by Kimba W Lion
But so what if it's "just a few channels"? That was more than is worth
listening to on terrestrial radio. If you got cable for ESPN and they
dropped it for SoapNet, would you have no right to be disappointed?

A savvy consumer will realize which channels are more popular and
subscribe to a service based on their worth to them. If they are
basing their decision on a few peripheral channels which may or may
not be viable, then they will be making a bad choice. Your analogy is
a bad one because ESPN would never be dropped for SoapNet. So making
a decision based on favoring well-established channels is wise while
choosing to subscribe for a few fringe channels is risky.

Post by Kimba W Lion
As a matter of fact, Comcast did drop one of the 5 channels I cared about,
so I dropped Comcast and got Dish Network. I tried XM and found it boring,
and moved to Sirius. With Sirius blandifying itself, I am considering not
renewing.

[Kimba W Lion]

Post by MidnightDad
To expect that the channels YOU like will exist in perpetuity is
foolish. They are under no obligation to carry those channels
forever.

To expect the channels I like will exist forever may be foolish, but to
subscribe for those channels is not.

Post by MidnightDad
A savvy consumer will realize which channels are more popular and
subscribe to a service based on their worth to them.

So I'm supposed to subscribe to something based on what other people like?
Now that's foolish.

Post by MidnightDad
If they are
basing their decision on a few peripheral channels which may or may
not be viable, then they will be making a bad choice.

So a better choice would be the service that doesn't offer something
different?

Post by MidnightDad
Your analogy is
a bad one because ESPN would never be dropped for SoapNet.

No, it's about equivalent to dropping Planet Jazz for All-Grateful-Dead-
all-the-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Post by MidnightDad
So making
a decision based on favoring well-established channels is wise

That is just stupid.

I don't listen to something just because everyone else listens to it. I
want to hear what I want to hear. Any channel in the lineup can be a
reason to subscribe, and losing any channel is a reason to dump them.

Satellite radio sells itself as an alternative to terrestrial radio--we
have all these channels so we can serve all these niches. Then they dump
the niche channels. This may make sense to the shortsighted people who
don't care about the niches, but it takes away their reason for existing.

Now they're trying to sell this merger because one company with all those
channels will better be able to serve all the niches. History says that
that is total bullshit.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

Post by Kimba W Lion
To expect the channels I like will exist forever may be foolish, but to
subscribe for those channels is not.

Right on!

The main reason I subscribed was to hear a live weekend financial talk
radio show that is often locally pre-empted by MLB and Division I
college sports. I've been listening to the show since ~ 1992 on
"free" radio. I subscribed to XM in 2002 so that I could listen to it
on a regular basis.

XM has now delayed the show, so it's no longer live, and made it
subject to pre-emption by college football. Bye-bye XM!

Since I can't have the show live, I canned my $11 XM subscription and
paid the $4.95/mo to buy the commercial-free ABC podcast of my
favorite show. As a consolation bonus, the show is only 1:51 per
episode with the commercials gone, and I can listen in places where XM
wasn't feasible.

The sound quality of my IPod is head and shoulders better than XM for
music, so I don't think I'll miss much.

[MidnightDad]

Post by Kimba W Lion

Post by MidnightDad
To expect that the channels YOU like will exist in perpetuity is
foolish. They are under no obligation to carry those channels
forever.

To expect the channels I like will exist forever may be foolish, but to
subscribe for those channels is not.

Post by MidnightDad
A savvy consumer will realize which channels are more popular and
subscribe to a service based on their worth to them.

So I'm supposed to subscribe to something based on what other people like?
Now that's foolish.

Um, yeah. That's how it works. They may try a few niche channels to
see if people like them, but the bulk of the channels are carried
because of their popularity (i.e., what other people like).

Post by Kimba W Lion

Post by MidnightDad
If they are
basing their decision on a few peripheral channels which may or may
not be viable, then they will be making a bad choice.

So a better choice would be the service that doesn't offer something
different?

Post by MidnightDad
Your analogy is
a bad one because ESPN would never be dropped for SoapNet.

No, it's about equivalent to dropping Planet Jazz for All-Grateful-Dead-
all-the-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Post by MidnightDad
So making
a decision based on favoring well-established channels is wise

That is just stupid.
I don't listen to something just because everyone else listens to it. I
want to hear what I want to hear. Any channel in the lineup can be a
reason to subscribe, and losing any channel is a reason to dump them.
Satellite radio sells itself as an alternative to terrestrial radio--we
have all these channels so we can serve all these niches. Then they dump
the niche channels. This may make sense to the shortsighted people who
don't care about the niches, but it takes away their reason for existing.

The niche channels are a by-product of available bandwidth. Do you
really think they could exist if they only carried jazz, Gregorian
chant, and country? They make their real money on the major (i.e.,
most popular) programmers like ESPN and Fox. Any smart consumer
should realize that the niche channels will come and go and shouldn't
rely on them to justify their subscription.

Post by Kimba W Lion
Now they're trying to sell this merger because one company with all those
channels will better be able to serve all the niches. History says that
that is total bullshit.

No, they want to merge because they will both be out of business soon
if they don't. Economics pure and simple.

[Kimba W Lion]

Post by MidnightDad
The niche channels are a by-product of available bandwidth.

You're saying they've got more channels than they know what to do with?

Post by MidnightDad
Do you
really think they could exist if they only carried jazz, Gregorian
chant, and country?

No one said that they couldn't have the
boring^H^H^H^H^H^H"well-established" channels as well.

Post by MidnightDad
Any smart consumer
should realize that the niche channels will come and go and shouldn't
rely on them to justify their subscription.

A smart consumer buys exactly what he wants.

A smart seller diversifies what he offers, or specializes in something he
knows. Both satellites services are reducing the diversity of what they
offer, and deleting the specialized niche channels because the people
making the decisions don't know the music. A Grateful Dead channel gives
them a logo to decorate their ads, which makes it easier for people who
are just generic marketers to create flashy ads.

Post by MidnightDad
No, they want to merge because they will both be out of business soon
if they don't. Economics pure and simple.

And if they're going to be incredibly bland, the sooner they go out of
business, the better.

[Steve B.]

Post by Kimba W Lion

Post by MidnightDad
To expect that the channels YOU like will exist in perpetuity is
foolish. They are under no obligation to carry those channels
forever.

To expect the channels I like will exist forever may be foolish, but to
subscribe for those channels is not.

I agree. If I wanted to listen to what everyone else listened to I
wouldn't get satellite radio in the first place.

Steve B.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by MidnightDad

Post by Kimba W Lion
But so what if it's "just a few channels"? That was more than is worth
listening to on terrestrial radio. If you got cable for ESPN and they
dropped it for SoapNet, would you have no right to be disappointed?

A savvy consumer will realize which channels are more popular and
subscribe to a service based on their worth to them. If they are
basing their decision on a few peripheral channels which may or may
not be viable, then they will be making a bad choice.

I disagree. If Sirius has a channel I like and I subscribe to that
channel, how can that possibly be a bad choice? What do you think is a
BETTER choice? Not having that channel that I like at all?

[Montauk6]

I can't believeSiriusdeletedPlanet Jazz. They only had 3 Jazz channels
to begin with, and now they're down to 2. My choices now are "smooth" or
"ancient". I'm just wondering if anybody else cares. Maybe I was the only
one that listened to it all the time. I'm pretty certain I'm going to
cancel, but I'm wondering if I should switch to XM right away for Beyond
Jazz or wait to see what happens with the merger. I'm not looking forward
to re-installing an XM antenna on my pickup either.
I've emailedSiriusseveral times and the replies have been: "we're really
sorry, no plans to bring it back, etc. etc.".

I'm peeved as well, I LOVED that station!. Fusion is NOT the same as
smooth jazz, come on!

I suppose, next, they'll kill Kid's Stuff and claim, "well, your
toddlers can always listen to Radio Disney!" IDIOTS!!!!