how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to The Monkey
Re: So what?!?! 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. | |
 The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
1 edit | 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. | |
The MonkeyI like bananasPremium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
1 edit | 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 | |
|
