Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by ColorBASIC:If terrestrial broadcasters says the merger is bad, then it's obviously good. The irony here is that this display of defiance of terrestrial broadcasters still has them making the choice.
Satellite radio has competition from media players like the iPod, regular OTA radio and other entertainment sources. There is no monopoly to be had. It's a bogus argument. Well, at least the last part is true. The above is a bogus argument. My media player has a radio tuner built into it. But it can't create a radio station. No music that's not in my collection, no ready-made playlists, not even close. That's an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one. It also completely ignores the basic fact that a marketplace with only one vendor allowed in is, by definition, a monopoly. And no, lumping one market together with others in reference doesn't magically make them one.
As it stands now if you want to listen to MLB and Stern you have to have 2 radios and pay for 2 subscriptions. How is that good for consumers? It's not. At least not for that subset of consumers of satellite radios who wish to listen to two things at once. I'm not anything close to convinced that that's a substantial group.
Consumers would benefit hugely from being able to buy a single radio and getting all the programming. Quite true. But since that can be done without forming a monopoly, what does it have to do with the topic?
It's only good for terrestrial broadcasters who stand on the sidelines with an ear to ear grin while XM and Sirius fight each other. Not knowing what "it" is, I'll take this to be just more misdirection.
Meanwhile the Exxon merger which actually MATTERED to people as well as being a national security issue went through in record time. As I said above... 
I have to question a gov't who spends more time worried about Howard Stern than they do about Exxon. You haven't yet established that that is in fact the case. But that's not important, is it? |
