how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Zach 58Premium
join:2006-11-26
NW Minnesota | reply to pnh102
Re: So what?!?! said by pnh102:said by Zach 58:Who cares if it becomes a monopoly? We have to oppose this terminology at all costs. Even if there is one satellite radio company, it is not even close to being a monopoly. It would still compete with crappy terrestrial radio as well as stored content on CDs and MP3 players. This isn't anywhere close to a monopoly. Why?? When one company owns the rights to the entire allocated spectrum for a particular service, that makes the entity who owns the rights a monopoly in that arena. No to mention what ever is going to happen will do so regardless of what I think and/or which terminology I use. Nothing changes the fact that a business has to make a profit. The current players have yet to do so which can not continue in the long term. In the mean time, I choose to have both services. If they end up merging, I will likely sub the remaining service. If they go broke and cease operation, I will return to DMX, record to an MP3 player and get my tune fix that way. IMHO, I would still rather have two players but one viable player in the satellite radio game is better than none. | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by Zach 58:Why?? When one company owns the rights to the entire allocated spectrum for a particular service, that makes the entity who owns the rights a monopoly in that arena. No to mention what ever is going to happen will do so regardless of what I think and/or which terminology I use. The market is satellite radio. The market is competition for terrestrial broadcasters, but terrestrial broadcasters are not competition for satellite radio.
You must be in close physical proximity to terrestrial FM transmitter in order to receive the station that you want to hear. The only place to hear your hometown FM station is in your hometown area. Only a few AM broadcasters operate on clear channels, at high power to be able to reach a large area of the CONUS. Even then, capricious propagation, fading and other characteristics of the middle-wave band make broadcast AM radio unreliable. In contrast, satellite radio delivers the same content no matter where you are. You can listen to the exact same programming on satellite while you're out camping, far away from any FM station, and where few MW signals reach.
Yes, this merger would create a monopoly. No doubt about that. If it protects the capital investments of the people who bought these radios, which aren't good for anything else, and keeps viable satellites productive, then it may be worth it. But not for a moment do I believe that a merger will reduce subscription fees, as claimed. I also doubt that any kind of software retrofits will obviate the need to purchase new radios for the new merged service. In fact, I have a hunch that existing radios will become useless sooner than later, after new hardware licensing deals are signed.
Not that I particularly care, though. When it comes to music, the media giants are pandering to the lowest common denominator. I don't fall into that group. For me, Internet radio is the only medium that's providing content that I'd want to listen to. | | |
|
 The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY | said by Time4aNAP:The market is satellite radio. Only if you are against this merger. That is the most narrow market definition possible. The more logical definition of the relevant product market includes terrestrial radio as the relevant product market. A broader definition includes digital audio players, internet radio, etc.
said by Time4aNAP:Yes, this merger would create a monopoly. No doubt about that.
Only if you are relying on the most superficial definition of a monopoly. Otherwise, yes, there very much is doubt about that. Just because the merged entity would be the only sat radio provider does not mean it qould have sufficient market power to unilaterally raise prices. In fact, most of the data suggest otherwise. said by Time4aNAP:Not that I particularly care, though. When it comes to music, the media giants are pandering to the lowest common denominator. I don't fall into that group. For me, Internet radio is the only medium that's providing content that I'd want to listen to. Another example of someone claiming the merger would result in a monopoly, while simultaneously proving that the relevant product market is broader than sat radio. --
The Monkey | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Well Monkey, the fact of the matter is that in the real world, the dog wags it's tail, not the other way around. The facts remain the same, regardless of my opinion or yours. You can resort to name-calling, but it still doesn't alter the definition of a monopoly. And you have completely evaded my argument, which pretty much says it all.
I don't see any data that suggests that having but one choice in satellite radio will lower prices for that Cingular...er, I mean singular service. And no, the opinions expressed by a couple of special interest groups that have a demonstrable vested interest in the merger is not data. What I do see is a long history of unmitigated greed among unregulated monopolies. From the steam railroads to AT&T, it has been a consistent pattern.
Your ad hominem attacks fail to impress. Nothing new here. Move along, folks... | |
The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
2 edits | said by Time4aNAP:Well Monkey, the fact of the matter is that in the real world, the dog wags it's tail, not the other way around. The facts remain the same, regardless of my opinion or yours. You can resort to name-calling, but it still doesn't alter the definition of a monopoly. And you have completely evaded my argument, which pretty much says it all. I don't see any data that suggests that having but one choice in satellite radio will lower prices for that Cingular...er, I mean singular service. And no, the opinions expressed by a couple of special interest groups that have a demonstrable vested interest in the merger is not data. What I do see is a long history of unmitigated greed among unregulated monopolies. From the steam railroads to AT&T, it has been a consistent pattern. Your ad hominem attacks fail to impress. Nothing new here. Move along, folks... My, aren't we defensive? Someone refutes your "arguments" and you turn it into a character assault. In other words, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, but just want to spout a bunch of nonsense.
EDIT: also, you seem keen on speaking in "real world" terms, yet your posts indicate you do not have "real world" experience dealing with antitrust issues.
--
The Monkey | |
| reply to Time4aNAP
said by Time4aNAP:The market is satellite radio. The market is competition for terrestrial broadcasters, but terrestrial broadcasters are not competition for satellite radio. Might want to let Clear Channel know about that. They consider satellite radio a very big and real threat. They have been fighting against it for years because it cuts into their advertising profits.
»www.techdirt.com/articles/200702···43.shtml
»www.avrev.com/news/0604/30.satellite.html | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to The Monkey
said by The Monkey:My, aren't we defensive? Someone refutes your "arguments" and you turn it into a character assault. Those are your words, not mine. I was simply pointing out that your rather primitive use of logical fallacy failed. But since you admit that your attack is in fact a verbal assault, I'll be sure to mark you for moderation.
In other words, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, but just want to spout a bunch of nonsense. So you say. And once again fail to back it up with any evidence whatsoever. Since your intent is belligerence, you can explain yourself to the management. | |
The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY | said by Time4aNAP:said by The Monkey:My, aren't we defensive? Someone refutes your "arguments" and you turn it into a character assault. Those are your words, not mine. I was simply pointing out that your rather primitive use of logical fallacy failed. But since you admit that your attack is in fact a verbal assault, I'll be sure to mark you for moderation. lol, your answer to those who don't agree with you is to seek moderation. Sad.
--
The Monkey | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by The Monkey:lol, your answer to those who don't agree with you is to seek moderation. No, not at all. It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, or the fact that you can't make a case for your disagreement. It's because you chose to express your disagreement as a flame, rather than as an adult conversation. | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:Might want to let Clear Channel know about that. They consider satellite radio a very big and real threat. They have been fighting against it for years because it cuts into their advertising profits. I'm not going to take it as a given that satellite, or anything else for that matter "cuts into" Clear Channel's advertising profits. And so what if it does?
Television, newspapers, magazines, billboards...all kinds of things are used to advertise products. Clear Channel is no more entitled to that ad revenue than they are to satellite radio ad revenue. If their rate cards are looking bad, they might want to entertain the idea that boring people to death with formulaic programming and tons of commercials might possibly have something to do with it.
The fact remains that satellite radio is a separate market from terrestrial broadcasting.
So what's next? Is someone going to cite all of the walkie-talkies in the world as "proof" that a one-company marketplace isn't a monopoly? Seriously folks, playing with semantics can be entertaining if you're clever, but this isn't. | |
The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to Time4aNAP
said by Time4aNAP:said by The Monkey:lol, your answer to those who don't agree with you is to seek moderation. No, not at all. It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, or the fact that you can't make a case for your disagreement. It's because you chose to express your disagreement as a flame, rather than as an adult conversation. Craziness. Go back and re-read the posts. If that's a flame, then most of this board will need to be moderated, including your own posts!
EDIT: to get back on topic, you should take a look at Hazlett's recent white paper and also read the DOJ's Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Hazlett's analysis is strong, but biased. Regardless, the two pieces should show you (and others) why the blanket statement that the merged entity would be a monopoly fails to engage in the economic analysis required in such mergers.
--
The Monkey | |
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Nice to see that you've decided to join the conversation.
If you're referring to the US Department of Justice, the one that's currently in big trouble for abandoning its duties to act as a political body, you can understand why I'm going to pass on that source. The fact still remains that having only one vendor in a market does constitute a monopoly. It's a basic truth that's not up for debate.
If Sirius and XM aren't turning a profit, and they could operate more efficiently as a single entity, that's fine as long as they emerge from bankruptcy with only one of the two franchise licenses. If there are any takers for that franchise, then there will be competition and the public at large will have been served.
If there are no takers, which I suspect would be the case, then the Sirius/XM merged entity needs to be regulated as the monopoly that it would be. The remaining bandwidth can be repurposed for some other service, possibly a terrestrial digital broadcast radio service following the lead of Europe's Eureka 147.
As I noted earlier, Sirius and XM spited themselves by failing to agree on a common receiver design. IME a radio that allows a choice of vendors fosters healthy competition and serves the public well. For example, AMPS phones were built to a common standard, allowing them to be switched between two services at will. And the AMPS industry flourished.
IMO Sirius and/or XM should try that avenue first. According to the literature produced in favor of the merger, a simple firmware upgrade can convert existing Sirius and XM receivers to receive both frequency bands. If true, that means that existing receivers can be retrofitted for competitive operation at a nominal cost. This will allow the market to decide the fate of the players. And if it's a lie, then that's yet another reason to suspect the merger proposal.
So there are several alternatives to creating a monopoly. Therefore the haste in creating the monopoly is unwarranted. Neither Sirius nor XM have any right to survive. If one or both fail, that is part of the risk of capitalism. But I'd think long and hard before granting monopoly status in a time and market where a monopoly does nothing to serve the public at large. | |
| reply to Time4aNAP
said by Time4aNAP:I'm not going to take it as a given that satellite, or anything else for that matter "cuts into" Clear Channel's advertising profits. And so what if it does? Clear Channel has made it VERY clear they consider satellite radio a big threat to terrestrial radio. They did everything in their power to stop it in the beginning and keep trying to stop it from making them turn off their repeaters to making RIAA member companies charge more per song.
said by Time4aNAP:Television, newspapers, magazines, billboards...all kinds of things are used to advertise products. Clear Channel is no more entitled to that ad revenue than they are to satellite radio ad revenue. If their rate cards are looking bad, they might want to entertain the idea that boring people to death with formulaic programming and tons of commercials might possibly have something to do with it. Why change your business model if it is easier to cry foul? See cable companies and telco companies.
said by Time4aNAP:The fact remains that satellite radio is a separate market from terrestrial broadcasting. To you and me maybe but not to the terrestrial broadcasters. The Jack-FM concept was one way to combat this but they are still playing a lot of commercials to pay for the airtime and people are noticing. Look how CBS radio sued Howard Stern when he went to Sirius trying to stop their cash cow from leaving.
said by Time4aNAP:So what's next? Is someone going to cite all of the walkie-talkies in the world as "proof" that a one-company marketplace isn't a monopoly? Seriously folks, playing with semantics can be entertaining if you're clever, but this isn't. Motorola is not the ONLY walkie-talkie maker out there. While they are a market leader, I have seen GE, Icom, Kenwood and various others out in the market.
If you are talking about the Nextel service, Verizon tried it but couldn't get it to work right so that's why they put it on the back back burner. | |
The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to Time4aNAP
said by Time4aNAP:Nice to see that you've decided to join the conversation. If you're referring to the US Department of Justice, the one that's currently in big trouble for abandoning its duties to act as a political body, you can understand why I'm going to pass on that source. The fact still remains that having only one vendor in a market does constitute a monopoly. It's a basic truth that's not up for debate. If you're not going to even take the time to educate yourself about the fundamentals of antitrust law and analysis, then this conversation is an exercise in futility. The merger guidelines are THE starting point for any antitrust review, and are largely emulated by most credible competition authorities around the world. I actually share your sentiments about DOJ's recent behavior in respect to its other duties, but the guidelines are apolitical (and predate this administration). Further, if you had ever dealt with one of the agencies (DOJ or FTC) on such issues, you would know that the line attorneys, and most of their supervisors, really don't give a hoot about the politics. And their economists certainly don't.
Again, your take on what constitues a monopoly utterly fails to consider that a true monopolist is a firm that is the sole provider of goods that can charge whatever it wants because there are no close substitutes. Such is not the case here. There are plenty of close substitutes, listed ad nauseum in this thread and in the articles, that will render the merged entity unable to unilaterally raise prices without losing customers. In other words, you state that one vendor in a market is a monopoly, but you just assume the most narrow market definition possible, which is a mistake.
Finally, ask yourself why the NAB is so opposed to the deal. The only reasonable interpretation of its opposition is that such a deal threatens terrestrial radio's market share--in other words, promotes competition.
EDIT: for typos.
--
The Monkey | |
|
