FCC Chair To Support XM-Sirius Merger

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin said yesterday that he will support a merger between the nation's sole satellite radio operators, XM and Sirius, a decision that could remove the last regulatory hurdle in the lengthy and heavily criticized move to make the companies one.

Martin came to the decision after the companies agreed last week to several commitments intended to prevent the monopoly from raising programming prices and from stifling competition among radio makers, aides to the chairman said in an interview yesterday. Critics have argued that a merger of District-based XM and Sirius of New York would hurt consumers, who would have fewer choices of programming and radio transmitters and who would be charged higher prices because of a lack of rivals.

As early as this week, Martin is expected to issue an order that the commission vote to approve the merger, which at least two of the remaining four commissioners must also agree to, the aides said.

"As I have indicated before, this is an unusual situation," Martin said in a statement. "I am recommending that with the voluntary commitments have offered, on balance, this transaction would be in the public interest."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502149.html

---

Good. Die terrestrial radio, die.

Hundreds of music stations and no commercials. Liberal radio wherever I drive from coast to coast.

[deacon]

1. Up 18% already. n/t

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=SIRI

[michreject]

49. Hope they get it completed before football season

I only have XM.

[foo_bar]

2. there won't be much liberal radio once they're a monopoly

I mean there will be on the net (and WBAI), but if Sirius-XM doesn't approve of your show for whatever "bottom line" reason they'll basically tell you to get your own satellite, and that's a significant barrier to entry.

It is unclear how the other commissioners would vote. FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, has been cautious about the merger, saying he didn't see how it would benefit consumers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502149.html

[liberal N proud]

3. For the republicon lead FCC, this is perfect

A single entity in the business.
Now I am certain that I will not be purchasing a satellite radio system in the foreseeable future

[mac56]

4. "Die terrestrial radio, die"?!

Screw you.

:grr:

[pattmarty]

7. I agree. How is a fucking monopoly going to make radio better?

[Edgewater_Joe]

10. It's Only A Monopoly If ALL You Think Of Is "Radio"

BUT, when you think about iPods, podcasting, streaming video, terrestrial radio, and perhaps even auto wi-fi (if we still have cars, that is), satellite radio is one of a series of options now available to you. That was the argument presented that worked, and it kind of makes sense to me.

[mac56]

11. Are you referring to the OP?

Because I didn't read anything about "one of a series of options."

What I read was: "Die terrestrial radio, die."

Did we read the same OP?

[pattmarty]

14. Do you fucking know what a monopoly is? What the fuck are you talking about?

You are talking like you've been brainwashed by AEI for Christs sake. Satellite radio in the US at least, has at this time only two companies, IE; competition. Just because you have a "series of options" (sounds like choice)does not mean that all is good for the consumer. Better look in your dictionary and see what "monopoly" & "antitrust" definitions are.

[onehandle]

16. Satellite radio will cease to exist without this merger.

I am usually anti-corporation as can be, but in this case, a merger is a necessity.

[pattmarty]

18. Proof, facts please, because I don't fucking believe it for a minute.

[onehandle]

22. Satellite radio has never made a profit and even with the merger, they could fall.

Here's what the investment community says...

"The real question is whether the approval will come too late to save the companies. Because they operate on different technology platforms, it could take over a year for the merger to gain real cost savings. Worse, each company has over $1 billion in debt. Neither has ever made an operating profit.

Satellite radio is also up against new competition for HD radio and portable media players and multimedia cell handsets. Many of the satellite radios are sold in new cars, but auto sales are down sharply."

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/06/16/sirius-siri-deal-with-xm-satellite-xmsr-may-finally-be-appro/

[pattmarty]

28. See reply #26. "Here's what the investment community says..."

If you are going to believe ANYTHING & EVERYTHING from the "investment community" then I got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya. I believe it was that "community" that got us into the Enron scam, the housing scam, Hedge funds, speculation in oil and grain (food), so I would rather listen to Fox "news" than the "investment community" whatever the fuck that exactly is.

[onehandle]

34. Ok.

I'm done with you.

[melm00se]

53. well, instead of taking the

investment community's analysis (which you don't seem to regard too highly), let's do a little analysis of our own:

XM Satellite Radio Holdings, according to their balance sheet (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XMSR&annual) is currently holding the following debt:

$1.5 billion in long term debt plus $764 million in short term debt. the big number, however, is the $1.5 billion.

Now, lets look at their Income statement (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XMSR&annual) for the fiscal year 2007 they lost $682 million, which while less of a loss than 2006 it's still a BIG loss.

OK, now that we know that they have lost a crap load of money last year, owe 3x that crap load of money to the moneylenders, lets take a look at satellite radios competition:

There are a lot of mobile media content choices out there today:

- Regular radio (AM and FM - upside: free, downside: ads)
- The nascent HD radio spectrum (upside: free, broader amount of content, downside: need to by a HD radio + ads)
- Portable music players - iPods and the like (upside: completely user customizable content; downside: cost of unit acquisition)
- Streaming audio across cells phones (upside: can be customizable; downside: ongoing monthly cell phone bill)
Plus I am sure that there will be more options coming as the mobility technology continues to evolve.

While there is certainly a market for this service (9 million subscribers), Sirius would need, to break even, would be no less than 4.4 million new additional, net, subscribers, paying full coin, $155/year that stick around for an extended period of time ($682 million/$155 = 4.4 million).

Going even further, to clear that debt that would need to continue to grow at a 5-10% pace for quite sometime to begin to make in-roads on that $1.4 billion.

Financial analysis like this, of a public company, is a fair simple thing to do and if you don't trust the numbers that you are being given, well, you could always think that this is the best possible situation that they have and assume that it is somewhat worse...and in this case, if that is true, then XM Radio has one step in the grave and another on a banana peel.

[pattmarty]

55. OK. It seems that behind what you are saying with all the "balance sheets"......

....is to let them merge and that MIGHT just fix satellite radio. OR, it might not. Their investors knew the downside of ANY investment for Christs sake, the only way the "merger" will fix this is by the efficiency of the others added customer base and savings of 1 company vs 2 companies. I think what EVERYONE that is for this merger is forgetting is monopoly. Both these companies have "captive" audiences. IE, the customer has to first buy the "receiver" then more importantly pay a monthly charge to keep the service. Now, if I have invested the cost in a "receiver" and am also paying my monthly bill (to keep the service) what is to stop Sirius/XM from raising my monthly fee every fucking month? There is only 1 company now and if I don't like it well, tough shit. The problem is the same with Direct and Dish satellite TV networks. I switched a little over a year ago to Direct because Dish (who I had) was increasing their fees. I just this week have exercised my consumer right to "switch" back because now Dish is a little cheaper and I got "promotional" freebies. This is what I am trying to get at here; with only 1 company you don't have "choice" anymore. I stand by what I said earlier, for whatever reason either or both companies can't make it, too bad. It ain't like you have to have the government step in to save or help them stay in business because they are like the water company or public transportation. I like Sirius and not XM, but I will continue to live quite well without either if it comes to that.

[melm00se]

59. I never said whether or not

I think the merger should or should not take place so please don't try to put words into my mouth. I was providing points of fact, nothing more.

Regardless of whether the merger goes thru or not, both of these companies are so deeply in debt (Combined $2.6 billion in long term debt) and continue to hemorrhage money (combined losses of $1.2 billion in FY2007), that I seriously doubt that even with the economies of scale and increase in subscribers a merger might bring that either of these companies (separately or combined) are a truly viable long term concerns.

There is just too much competition that offers better price points, better and more personalized content and more flexibility, no merger will overcome those issues, it will just delay the inevitable: the end of the service and selling off of assets.

[pattmarty]

60. OK. Your point then is they are both in bad shape because......

.....of finances, which I am not arguing with. My point is that since there are only 2 satellite radio stations at this time, they should NOT be allowed to merge as this would create a monopoly. If one or both fail then so be it, that's the way capitalism is SUPPOSED to work. What's the old saying, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

[melm00se]

62. it can go either way

one the one hand 2 becoming 1 does create a monopoly, and in this case only in the area of satellite radio. OTOH, the case can be made that similar and/or identical content is readily available from other sources so there is no monopolistic control by a single entity over the content.

I can see both sides and both sides have merit...so, when in doubt, err on the side of caution: no merger.

[pattmarty]

63. We both agree on that, anyway.

[Hugabear]

50. I do not give a flying fuck about profits

These people are making money, don't let them fucking lie to you. They come to Congress hat in hand, lying their ASS off about how they're losing money, how they need to merge, poor them. They then form a mega-corporation, Big Satellite, and then start offering even SHITTIER service, charging customers MORE money, all the while laughing their ass off the bank.

[joeglow3]

23. Wow, you like to swear.

However, neither company has shown a profit and show no hint of being able to show a profit. Simple economics show us they will eventually go bankrupt. Hell, I am not even convinced a merger will provide enough efficiencies for them to survive.

[pattmarty]

26. Then let the MARKET do its fucking job!!!!! If they both are......

.....ineffecient, wasteful, top heavy with executives, and paying way too much for talent (Howard Stern), then fuck 'em. You would have them "merge" and form 1 company to be able to charge consumers whatever it wants. I just love "you people" that espouse free markets and when a company gets in trouble THEN it's OK for the government to bail them out. Fix the fucking FCC so they can do their damn job and regulate "communication" companies. Look at it this way, if they both go bust then some other hopefully smarter entrepreneurs will get together and form another company. that's the way a Capitalist system is supposed to work in theory, ain't it?

[joeglow3]

30. Fuckidity fuck fuck fuck

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.

Thing is, I think this could be a viable business model. However, if this fails, you will be hard pressed to see someone try it out again for a LOOOOONG time.

[pattmarty]

31. Do you REALLY feel better now? I have always said, they are "only words".

[Beetwasher]

20. You've Been Brainwashed By Clear Channel and The NAB

Monopoly means no COMPETITION. So, if they merge and there would be (in theory) no competition (which is the a main component of what creates a monopoly), why is Clear Channel and the NAB so opposed to (and afraid of) the merger? Oh, that's right, THEY (terrestial radio) don't want the competition FROM Sattelite radio.

Or do you think Clear Channel is funneling millions to lobbyists to defeat this merger out of their concern for consumers? Give me a fucking break. At least have a little knowledge about the subject and who is actually FUNDING the opposition to this merger before you spout off on it.

Sattelite radio is a delivery system for music. Period. There are LOT'S of other systems available to compete with it, INCLUDING terrestial radio (which is FREE), MP3 players, internet etc. There's plenty of competition, therefore, no meaningful monopoly. You don't NEED sattelite radio to get music, it is a luxury service.

[Edgewater_Joe]

42. First Off, Wash Your Mouth Out

Second, let me ask you this: what do you bring in your car with you or your children to pass the time and/or get information? Is it JUST a radio? If so, is it JUST an AM/FM radio, or do you ALSO have a satellite radio?

And if you have more than a radio, what ELSE do you have in your car? An iPod? A cell phone? A GPS? A DVD player? A CD player?

Yes, if by "monopoly" you mean "one company controls all aspects of a particular industry?" then yes, this would bring about a "monopoly" -- although it seems pretty clear that if the merger failed one of the companies would likely go out of business, and you'd wind up with a de facto monopoly anyway. (Unless one of those companies got bought out by, oh I dunno, CLEAR CHANNEL -- would THAT make a monopoly to you?!).

But, you see, if by "monopoly" you mean "one company controls all ways to get one product," then NO, this merger does NOT make a monopoly in the broader sense. A merged XM/Sirius would NOT mean you have one and only one way of getting radio in your car; it would NOT mean you have one and only one way to listen to music in your car; it would NOT mean you have one and only one way of getting information to you about traffic or weather.

You may not like that broader definition of monopoly, but that appears to be what the FCC is going to go with for the merger. And if you don't like it, expressing it in ways other than assuming the person making the counterargument is a 10-year-old who just broke your front window with a baseball might help you make a more persuasive case.

EDITED TO ADD: And by the way, Mister Know-it-All-About-Monopolies, NOT EVERY MONOPOLY IS ILLEGAL. Shocking, but true -- Congress and various regulatory agencies have, from time to time, allowed 'monopolies' to exist if they thought said monopolies would make other markets and parts of society run more effectively. The main example of this is Microsoft's effective monopoly of the operating system market, which was determined was necessary in order to help create universal networks. (Don't bring up Apple -- their refusal to become compatible to Windows nearly killed the company until iMacs and the iPod -- which Apple agreed to eventually work with Windows, thereby feeding Microsoft's monopoly).

[Hugabear]

54. Thank you for that very corporate-friendly answer

By your logic, I suppose you wouldn't mind if a large corporation like Clear Channel owned ALL of the radio stations in this country. After all, there are other ways to get info - satellite, mp3, internet, etc. So why would anyone worry about a single company controlling all the radio stations? Who cares about quality, pricing, or the customers?

[Edgewater_Joe]

56. Where Have YOU Been, Bunky?

Clear Channel pretty much DOES own most of the radio stations in this country, which is why I went to satellite radio the second it came on the market and why most people under 30 no longer listen to radio to get music - they are now on the Internet.

Which, I hate to tell you, is ... better sit down ... OWNED MOSTLY BY CORPORATE INTERESTS! EEEEEEEEK!!!!

And if you want to live in a corporate-free world, I hope you aren't typing on a computer, because even if you hand built every transistor and hand-wove every cable to make it work, you STILL fed the corporate beast in order to do it.

Don't sound like such a simpleton.

[Hugabear]

58. Don't be ridiculous

First of all, I'm no fan of Clear Channel either, I think they're the worst thing that's ever happened to terrestrial radio. However, it's still not as bad as having ONE company controlling all of satellite radio.

Secondly, I realize that it's impossible to escape corporations in our modern world. However, that doesn't mean I have to support monopolistic corporations who are bent solely on expanding their bottom line, enriching their shareholders, at the expense of the customer.

[Edgewater_Joe]

64. I Think This Is The Wrong Merger To Fight, Then

Where the fight needs to be fought is against Clear Channel. If anyone is a radio monopoly, THAT is the one -- and I would further suggest that without the Clear Channel monopoly, there would be no need for satellite radio.

Besides, XM has several of its channels programmed by Clear Channel, and if the merger failed you'd probably see them try to snap XM up.

So all in all, I'd rather have a sliver of a satellite radio monopoly to fight the Clear Channel monopoly than no satellite radio and Clear Channel.

[onehandle]

17. That has been the attitude towards satellite radio from terrestrial radio since the beginning.

I was kidding with my comment. Obviously terrestrial radio isn't going away.

The good news is that satellite radio will survive. Without this merger, both companies would go under.

After a lifetime of louder than needed commercials on terrestrial radio, I am indeed lucky to have satellite.

[brentspeak]

73. Why would both companies go out of business without the merger?

[annabanana]

5. Martin is a disaster.

Can I assume he will leave with GWB?

[fasttense]

6. Is there a monopoly that the bushes don't like? n/t

[pattmarty]

8. Explain to us "terrestrials" just how a monopoly is "Liberal radio"?

I had Sirius before and liked it (thru Dish network), I changed to Direct TV and they had XM radio which I hate (I'm going back to Dish), so you have a shitty network combining with an OK network with NO OTHER competition. Explain to us exactly how that is better?

[Zorra]

9. Voluntary commitment. That's a loophole bigger than the galaxy. n/t

[tpsbmam]

12. Die terrestrial radio, die.......are ya kidding me?

Wow. How nice for YOU that YOU can afford satellite radio. How nice that YOU can drive from coast to coast listening to satellite radio.

Are you not aware that many can't afford it? Are you not aware that may who are FINALLY listening to "liberal radio" are doing so on terrestrial radio? Are you not aware that the same people you're listening to on satellite radio are available to audiences on terrestrial radio, including those who can't afford satellite radio and who are in dire need of educating about what's going on in this country? Are you not aware that you sound like a selfish Republican corporatist when you say that, one who only wants radio available for those who can afford to pay a premium?

(PS This isn't bitter grapes -- I, too, have XM.....but I'm among the minority among people I know, many of whom depend on terrestrial radio to listen to "liberal radio.")

[mac56]

13. Satellite radio will never replace terrestrial radio.

Any more than Wal-Mart will never surpass the neighborhood community store.

[onehandle]

15. I was kidding on the sly.

After a lifetime of louder than needed commercials on terrestrial radio, I am indeed lucky to have satellite.

[mac56]

19. And I'm indeed lucky to have Wal-Mart.

Who needs all them pesky mom'n'pop stores, anyway?!

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

21. Yeah... Like Clear Channel.

Corporate owned radio conglomerates should have No competition.

[mac56]

24. Do you really think all radio stations are owned by conglomerates?!

You need some serious schooling before you run your mouth (or your keyboard) any more.

[onehandle]

25. Did I say all?

No.

It's the big six conglomerates that are trying to kill Satellite Radio.

[mac56]

27. It isn't just the conglomerates that object to satellite radio.

Don't tar us all with the same brush.

[onehandle]

32. So you're against satellite radio.

Why is that exactly?

[mac56]

37. No local origination, no local responsibility.

Discourages listeners from tuning into local stations. The local access and local responsiveness that local stations offer their communities is absent over the satellite. The Wal-Mart analogy is spot on.

When the last local radio station has gone quiet, and everyone's listening to XMSirius or whatever the hell they're going to call themselves, we will have lost something important and everyone will realize it.

[onenote]

39. they'd like to be able to do more local content but terrestrial broadcasters oppose it

even as they attempt to shed their own localism responsibilities.

I think localism is great. I think that there should be more of it. And if satellite can provide local news, and weather inserts for particular markets, more power to them. But NAB and the terrestrial broadcasters don't want the competition.

[mac56]

43. "even as they attempt to shed their own localism responsibilities."

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Again, you're tarring all terrestrial radio stations with the same brush. Why? Because it's more convenient for your specious argument. "Truthiness".

Screw you, and goodbye.

:grr:

[onenote]

45. actually, I know a lot about what I'm talking about

Ive been a communications lawyer representing broadcasters, cable, and telecom companies for almost 30 years. And I can recognize an NAB shill (some of them are good friends with whom I play golf) a mile away. The only difference is that my NAB friends will admit that a goal of the broadcast industry has been to reduce their localism obligations for years. Indeed, the FCC imposed new localism obligations on broadcasters not too long ago and the broadcasters are shreiking about it like stuck pigs.

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/06/broadcasters_fight_localism_ru.php

By the way, I happen to like broadcasting. And I'm not a subscriber to XM or Sirius. But one of the reasons for that is that the competition from XM/Sirius has improved terrestrial broadcasting imo. The radio stations around here have jettisoned their narrow playlists and digging deeper into the catalog to play music that previously was ignored. And with digital radio -- which allows broadcasters to multicast -- terrestrial can expand their offerings even further to be more competitive with satellite. But because radio is free and uses the public airwaves, it always will have a certain "lifeline" quality to it and should always be subject to some localism obligations. And if satellite wants to offer local content, that would be good, but it also should come with some regulatory obligations as well.

[mac56]

46. Lawyer, huh?

Suddenly, it all makes sense.

Oops! Silly me! Guess I just tarred you and everyone else who does what you do with the same brush. How rude of me.

Lots of us in small market radio (not NAB shills) are busting our asses every day to meet and exceed our localism obligations. Not because we're required, but because it's the right thing to do.

[onenote]

47. good for you. really

My view of NAB is that it sometimes leads its members where it wants to go, not where they necessarily want to go.

[alarimer]

68. Local radio EVERYWHERE I have ever lived has sucked.

The music sucks but so does the drive-time bullshit, ugly DJ's. And too many commercials. I never, ever listen to radio if I can help it (with the exception of NPR). Here there are 12 Clear Channel stations and 1 NPR station. And a few other crappy stations. It's either satellite radio for me or CDs and Ipod. NO MORE RADIO FOR ME EVER.

[brentspeak]

74. There's good local radio here in the NJ/NY region

It used to much better, but we still have WBGO (listener-sponsored jazz radio), WFMU (best free-form station in the country), as well as some cool AM oldies stations (they are commercial -- mostly ads for local stores -- but play great stuff).

[onenote]

29. which six big conglomerates would that be?

[onehandle]

33. GE, Time-Warner, Walt Disney, News Corp, CBS, Viacom.

This is about the tenth thing I've addressed in this thread that an easy google would have answered.

[onenote]

35. and you think those are the groups fightintg the XM/Sirius merger?

Not even close. THere have been over a 1000 comments filed with respect to the XM/Sirius merger. Not one has been filed by any of the groups you mentioned. And that's hardly surprising, because those companies generally speaking aren't in the radio business.

The companies that oppose the XM/Sirius merger are radio broadcast companies. That includes the big group owners: Citadel, Cumulus, CBS, Entercom, Clear.

Its kinda odd that you mentioned Clear in upthread, but then didn't even mention them in your list of the six conglomerates trying to "kill satellite radio".

THere are companies trying to kill satellite radio. They include the large radio broadcasters that own around 2200 of the nation's 11,000 commercial radio stations. They also include the small and medium companies, and mom and pops that own the rest of those radio stations. They are trying to kill satellite radio because they don't like the competition.


So, maybe you should try using google a bit yourself.

[onehandle]

36. Did I say that Clear Channel was one of the killers?

No.

The biggest conglomerates have no more than 20% of the radio stations, but they have most of the listeners.

I was not precise, I'll give you that.

In the end, terrestrial radio is trying to kill off an entire technology for their own profit.

That is not fair.

I gladly pay $13 a month for the greatest radio product ever conceived.

Enjoy your loud car sale commercials and overbearing DJs.

[onenote]

38. My point is that the companies you listed don't have a dog in the XM/Sirius hunt

The companies that do -- the companies that are trying to kill satellite radio -- are Cumulus, Citadel, Clear, Entercom, CBS Radio as well as hundreds of much smaller radio companies that are threatened by the competition.

I,personally,support the XM/Sirius merger. The terrestrial radio industry long ago revealed its true colors when it opposed satellite radio being allowed to provide any local content, simply to ensure that terrestrial radio's local audience and advertising was protected from competition -- and without regard for the fact that the public would benefit from additional sources of local content from satellite.

My only point is that there is a tendency to attribute everything that goes on in the media world to Time Warner, News Corp., Viacom, GE, Disney and CBS. (Of those six entities, only CBS radio owns any radio stations any more -- the ABC Radio network is really owned by Citadel-- and they only own around 140 or so stations out of the 11,000 plus in the country). In this instance, that tendency produces a mistaken assumption that those companies are invovled in the XM/Sirius fight when they aren't.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. I am firmly in the terrestrial radio can go to hell camp

I couldn't care less about talk radio, liberal or otherwise, but I enjoy the selection of MUSIC satellite radio offers. I have had Sirius for years now and I really don't think I could live without it.

I find when I am without satellite radio the radio just stays turned off.

[Pithlet]

41. I agree.

There may be those who want to blame satellite radio for the decline, and make me feel guilty for switching, but terrestrial radio has been on the decline music wise for years before satellite came along. I have a feeling satellite is the least of terrestrial radio's roblems. XM and Sirius have been like a breath of fresh air for me. I hope this merger doesn't ruin the quality.

[mac56]

44. Great. Enjoy your Wal-Mart world.

nm

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

48. yeah because Clear Channel is such a sea of diversity

provided you want to listen to some screaming asshole mumble about lib-uh-ruls or the latest High School Musical spin-off between 15 minutes of commercials for for used auto parts and temp agencies.

Where I live there is a couple of good music shows on NPR, but otherwise it is a sea of syndicated talk and sports garbage, rap, mall rat pop and music I hated when it wasn't classic rock.

Between what traditional radio has become and silence, I will choose silence. But since I have a choice I will stick to Sirius First Wave and Lithium.

[mac56]

51. Very nice.

Very, very nice.

I don't know where you live, but I'm so very sorry that local terrestrial radio sucks ass there.

[alarimer]

69. Have you ever listened to Sirius or XM?

The depth and breadth of the music channels alone make them worthwhile. I could care less about talk. I have never really liked talk radio, liberal or otherwise. But it is the music that makes satellite radio so great. They play stuff that would never get any airplay on regular radio. So fuck Clear Channel et al. They can go to hell for all I care and take their payola and limited playlists with them (and also their drive-time shock jocks).

[mac56]

76. Absolutely.

I even owned a Sirius receiver and subscription - - - for about 24 hours. Their promised, fabled "pristine reception" was far worse than I was able to pick up with my old fashioned FM loop antenna. Plus the car receiver was even worse. So back it went to Best Buy for an old school FM receiver.

Not impressed in the least.

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

52. Watch the rates go up

now.

[onenote]

57. if they do (and I'm not saying they will) what is stopping you from dropping the service?

since when is satellite radio an essential service?

[foo_bar]

61. are you a registered lobbyist?

Just curious, I feel like I've heard some of these laissez-faire talking points before. Never mind, I found the answer:

onenote

8. I've never made a secret of the fact that I'm a registered lobbyist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3971574&mesg_id=3971676

[onenote]

65. Yep. Although not for anyone with a direct interest in the XM/Sirius debate

Although I'm not sure what that has to do with the question. Prices for satellite service may go up (eventually) if they merge. How fast and how much will depend on exactly what the conditions that the FCC puts on the merger say.

Of course, if XM and Sirius don't merge, it is very likely that one or both will go out of business. If both go out of business, subscribers will save. If one goes out of business, then prices will go up. So, basically, prices are going to go up or service is going to go away.

[foo_bar]

66. I know better than to engage a lobbyist in his native habitat

Since I can only defer to expert opinion (disclosure: I'm a former terrestrial talk show host of the low-wattage, far-left frequency modulated variety), I'll have to go with a Democratic FCC commissioner over the unanimous acclaim of the Busheviks and their paid propagandists.

"Somebody's going to have to make a pretty powerful and potent demonstration that it serves the public interest," Copps said of the XM-Sirius deal.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/fcc-commissioner-expresses-doubt-on-siriusxm-merger.html

When asked about the merger's prospects, Copps pointed to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's comments, "Chairman Martin has already indicated it's a climb for him, well, it's a pretty steep climb for me."

Copps added that he would not prejudge the merger since it was currently before the commission.

Copps also said that there seemed to be quite the disconnect between the NAB's argument that broadcasters did not compete with satellite radio when it came to this merger, and the argument that it was "one big happy competitive family" when it came to seeking media ownership rule changes.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/copps-calls-siriusxm-merger-a-pretty-steep-climb.html

Michael Copps: Copps is nearly certain to vote “no,” in keeping with his stance on controlling merger activity among media companies. He put out a statement Monday that included this: “As I’ve said from the beginning, this merger is a steep climb for me. That hasn’t changed. Contrary to at least one press report, I have not pushed for any conditions that would support a finding that the transaction is in the public interest. I look forward to reviewing the Chairman’s proposal and will consider it with an open mind.”

<...>

Jonathan Adelstein: Adelstein has said he doesn’t believe the commission should break up as easily along ideological lines as it currently does. However, he, like Copps, historically has opposed consolidation or any weakening of rules on media ownership. Whether Adelstein comes down in favor of the deal will depend on what kinds of concessions he believes the companies should make as well as his own attachment to keeping a spot on the commission next year.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/06/17/xm-sirius-and-five-angry-men/?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Kire]

79. definition?

What is Copps definitio of "serving public interest"? That's what I would like to know.

News (CNN, NPR, BBC News, Canadian News, Korean News, two financial channels), at least a dozen Traffic andn Weather channels for various US Cities, "Doctor Radio", Sirius even has an emergency channel (which you can access even without buying a subscription). They do Amber Alerts. This is off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a lot more they do. Plus whatever XM has to offer.

How much is enough? I wouldn't be surprised if it were at or above 4% already.

[Kire]

78. in three years

that's part of the deal, they can't raise the rates for three years

which is nice for us, but not necessarily for quality

who knows where the economy will be in three years, I'm not saying they should just raise and raise and raise and raise, but, if I were running a business, and my expenses kept going higher, then, eventually, I might want to raise my rates a little bit

[alarimer]

67. I agree. Die terrestrial radio.

Nothing sucks more than regular radio. I cannot listen. Crap music, crap DJ's, crap advertising. But I am not entirely pleased that satellite radio will be a monopoly. That does worry me.

Still the main reason terrestrial radio is sucks is because of media mergers. Too much media consolidation by the likes of Clear Channel (which I hate with a passion). So the merger of Sirius and XM is worrisome to me.

[foo_bar]

70. I wouldn't trade the radio scene in Boston for the entire VHF spectrum

It's a Clear Channel and bible thumper wasteland for vast stretches of land, but that doesn't mean locally-produced or community-organized broadcasting is inherently inferior or superseded by a one-size-fits-all McDonalds paradigm.

Too much media consolidation by the likes of Clear Channel (which I hate with a passion).

Agreed:

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), a long-standing opponent of media consolidation, on Monday called the Department of Justice decision to approve the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio "another disappointing example of this administration's blatant disregard for the public interest with regard to media ownership."

Dorgan continued, "There seems to be no limit to the mergers this administration will approve. These two companies were issued licenses a decade ago to provide competing national satellite radio service. Their license approval included a clause that prohibits them from merging into one company. Now the Justice Department has decided the contract they signed can't stand in the way of consolidation. That doesn't make any sense to me."

Dorgan said "the American consumer will pay the price" if the XM-Sirius merger ultimately eliminates competition in satellite radio.

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=141526&pt=todaysnews

The chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee told the Federal Communications Commission it should not allow XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio to merge, saying that it would create a satellite-radio monopoly.

That came in the wake of the Department of Justice's decision not to challenge the merger or put any conditions on it. The FCC has still to weigh in, with chairman Kevin Martin saying recently that he wanted to do so by the end of this month.

Speaking as chairman of the committee, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) said in a statement: “We believe the elimination of competition between XM and Sirius is contrary to antitrust law and the interests of consumers. We urge that the FCC find the merger contrary to the public interest and exercise its authority to block it."

Saying that he was disappointed with the DOJ's decision, he went even further, adding: "We are particularly disturbed by this decision given the Justice Department's record in recent years of failing to oppose numerous mergers that reduced competition in key industries, resulting in the Justice Department not bringing a single contested merger case in nearly four years."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6544438.html

[customerserviceguy]

71. Satellite radio would not have become a monopoly

if it had been a viable concept. It's been existent for the better part of a decade, and still hasn't made a buck. If you hate satellite, then what's the problem, just don't pay for it. You'll still have all your other options.

I really didn't give a shit about satellite radio until my lady bought an Acura with an XM radio in it. When we drive long distances, we get uninterrupted reception anywhere we go, without having to hunt every hundred miles for the kinds of music we like to listen to. I get to listen to XM at home as a bonus. Now, I'm a bit of a fan. If satellite radio died, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but I'd feel a bit of a loss of something that modern technological progress has brought to better my life in at least a small way.

Let them merge. The conditions the FCC commissioner asks for really does protect the public interest for those who have a few extra bucks a month to spend on this. The rest of the people can stick to their terrestrial radio with wall-to-wall commercials, or just play their CDs or MP3 players.

[Orsino]

77. Don't want no merger.

Why would I want to pay more to a monopoly, when I only listen to a handful of channels, anyway?

Keep 'em separated.

[mac56]

72. See post 53. Your beloved XMSirius, or whatever the hell it'll be called

can't possibly attract enough subscribers to stay viable.

And incidentally - everyone who used this thread to drool about how much they hate "regular radio" can kiss my ass and go to hell.

[melm00se]

75. terrestrial radio

won't die...it may get shaken up a bit and their content and delivery method may change but they will continue, for 1 big reason:

it's free: it doesn't require any special equipment, it doesn't require a check each and every month.

the biggest threat to terrestrial radio is similar to the threat that is working against XM and Sirius: the mobile content delivery methods are growing every day and that will, in the long run, eat into their advertising revenue.

For me personally, when I am driving long distances, I listen to whatever pleasing radio I can find but if I can't find anything, I toggle over the the 6 CDs that are chock full of MP3's that I like and that gives me 40+ hours of uninterrupted music that I like (more than 99.99% of the radio stations in the US - even way back when, when stations were locally programmed).