XM Canada started trading today in Toronto but got off to an inauspicious start by closing below its $16 offering price. For an IPO that was over-subscribed, it's difficult to tell why it didn't perform better out of the gate. Perhaps there is still some doubt among investors about how well satellite-radio will do in Canada. Just because nearly 8 million people subscribe to the service in the U.S. doesn't mean it will be as successful north of the border. Canadians tend to be more price-sensitive and it may take some time before they start to believe that paying $12.95 for 100 channels of commercial-free radio is worth it. I mean, this is a country that has gone crazy for buck-a-beer and believes Tim Horton's makes as good a cup of java as Starbucks. In comparing the Canada with the U.S., I would also suggest commuters don't drive as long as many U.S. cities where suburbia is alive and well. Canada is also fortunate to have a popular and well-financed public broadcasters - CBC - that provides several channels of commercial-free radio already. And Canada doesn't have Clear Channel dominating the market, which means the market isn't as homogenous. Does this mean satellite-radio is doomed to make, at best, mediocre inroads in Canada? Maybe but I think it will just take longer for the market to gain momentum. In the short-term, Canadians are going to do a lot of browsing and radio-kicking before they jump into the service. But over time, I think a lot of people will climb onboard - lured by relatively low prices for service and hardware and the reality there is life in commercial-free radio beyond the CBC. If this scenario materializes, XM's disappointing first-day stock performance could offer a good buying opportunity.

What's with all these new reputation rehabilitation campaigns? First, it's a Steve Case editorial in the Washington Post; next it's George Gilder being nominated to AlwaysOn's annual "Power List". Tony Perkins seems intent on resuscitating Gilder's career given he had Gilder sit on an AlwaysOn conference panel earlier this year where he boldly pronounced big changes in the way television is going to be delivered - a notion that is far from novel or revolutionary. Nothing against Case and Gilder but they were animals of the dot-com and telecom booms - during which they roamed free and made tons of money. Based on their recent bodies work, I don't think either one is particularly relevant in the current high-tech environment. To achieve a real comeback, Case needs to show his entrepreneurial/sales mettle again, while Gilder has to come up with a new mantra to replace the fiber will change everything message of the 1990s.