 |  | 
tacoma
Bleeding Dodger Blue
Premium
join:2001-05-18
Riverside, CA
| It's ABOUT TIME! It's ABOUT TIME!
It's been over 70 days since the XM/Sirius merger was proposed to congress. In FCC history, no merger has taken as long to start its merger clock. | |
| Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
1 edit | No way ALL monopolies are a bad idea and defeat the purpose of a free market. In this case the monopoly would be a lock considering that XM/Sirius owns all the licenses. | |
| | 
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| Re: No way You do know that satelitte radio competes with "free radio" as well as internet radio and IPODs...
Technically they are the only "Satelitte radio" companies but that doesn't mean that they only compete with each other and I don't get why so many people continue to think they would be a "monopoly" if they merge. | |
| | | 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: No way said by stickfigure  :You do know that satelitte radio competes with "free radio" as well as internet radio and IPODs... Technically they are the only "Satelitte radio" companies but that doesn't mean that they only compete with each other and I don't get why so many people continue to think they would be a "monopoly" if they merge. Then you don't have a problem with, for example, Comcast owning ALL cable systems in the country, or AT&T re-forming to the monolith it was, as they both 'compete' with satellite TV and VOIP, respectively? | |
| | | | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
1 edit | Re: No way He or she obviously doesn't understand the concept of a monopoly. Free radio isn't going to cause the price of Satellite Radio to drop. Saying that it would is like saying OTA free TV programming competes with cable. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
The Monkey
I like bananas
Premium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No way said by Sly :Satellite radio would have a monopoly and for that, I am opposed to the merger. This statement is correct if and only if you define the relevant market as satellite radio, which would be incorrect. The relevant market should be defined to include, at the very least, traditional terrestrial radio. It arguably can be defined to include personal digital audio players, internet radio, HD radio, and other types of broadcasting. When the market is properly defined, it is clear that this is a pro-competitive move.
--
The Monkey | |
| | | | | | | 
Sly
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
clubs:
 ·Packet8
·Callcentric
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: No way said by The Monkey :said by Sly :Satellite radio would have a monopoly and for that, I am opposed to the merger. This statement is correct if and only if you define the relevant market as satellite radio, which would be incorrect. The relevant market should be defined to include, at the very least, traditional terrestrial radio. It arguably can be defined to include personal digital audio players, internet radio, HD radio, and other types of broadcasting. When the market is properly defined, it is clear that this is a pro-competitive move. So let's take it further... this statement would be correct if we define satellite radio and terrestrial radio as legitimate competitors, which I don't. I don't listen to terrestrial radio, no matter what the content. I have gotten to the point to where paid commercial radio is off limits to me. I don't like the low quality, I don't like the loss of signal and the interference analog radio delivers. So for that reason, I don't see the two as competing. Local radio may have the advantage of local news... but for listening purposes, it's satellite or internet only for me. Since I can't get internet radio in my car, for me the only alternative is satellite radio. Therefore the merger is still seen as a monopoly and shouldn't be allowed. When it becomes feasible to receive internet radio in my car, then I will see the two as competing. Until then, satellite radio has the monopoly for high quality, digital, commercial free content.
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato - | |
| | | | | | | |
The Monkey
I like bananas
Premium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No way said by Sly :said by The Monkey :said by Sly :Satellite radio would have a monopoly and for that, I am opposed to the merger. This statement is correct if and only if you define the relevant market as satellite radio, which would be incorrect. The relevant market should be defined to include, at the very least, traditional terrestrial radio. It arguably can be defined to include personal digital audio players, internet radio, HD radio, and other types of broadcasting. When the market is properly defined, it is clear that this is a pro-competitive move. So let's take it further... this statement would be correct if we define satellite radio and terrestrial radio as legitimate competitors, which I don't. I don't listen to terrestrial radio, no matter what the content. I have gotten to the point to where paid commercial radio is off limits to me. I don't like the low quality, I don't like the loss of signal and the interference analog radio delivers. So for that reason, I don't see the two as competing. Local radio may have the advantage of local news... but for listening purposes, it's satellite or internet only for me. Since I can't get internet radio in my car, for me the only alternative is satellite radio. Therefore the merger is still seen as a monopoly and shouldn't be allowed. When it becomes feasible to receive internet radio in my car, then I will see the two as competing. Until then, satellite radio has the monopoly for high quality, digital, commercial free content. It doesn't matter if you yourself do not listen to terrestrial radio. The fact that it is a competitor--which it certainly is, as amply evinced by the NAB's strong opposition--is enough for the analysis. Plus, you admit that you also listen to internet radio. That you can't get it in your car is hardly enough to support the narrow market definition that you suggest.
Consumers often make the mistake of defining the market in terms of themselves as individuals. This fundamental error leads to incorrect conclusions.
--
The Monkey | |
| | | | | | | | 
schmol
join:2001-12-26
Windsor, PA
1 edit | what the hell does internet radio have to do with this merger? These are 2 SATELLITE companies not internet radio stations!! Since you are talking internet radio, there are plenty of free radio stations that also transmit via internet. So now if I see this correctly, they are now competing against one another.
In your eyes, it's ok for one company like Clear Channel to go and buy up all of the radio stations it can, right? Isn't that a monopoly? How many companies do you think own 90% of the major market radio stations in this country???
Last time I checked, I can only get Comcast as a internet provider in my area, no DSL no nothing. Isn't that a monopoly? Aren't I supposed to have a choice? When it comes to Free Radio and Satellite Radio, I have a choice, I can either turn on the radio and listen to the same old music every 2 hours with tons of commercials or I can "PAY" $13 a month to listen to top quality commercial free music. I could even listen to POD casts if I wanted, how about me plugging in my MP3 player to my car stereo.
Do you pay for cable TV or do you use rabbit ears to get FREE tv? Same concept right?
You my friend are not thinking correctly | |
| | | | | | | | |
Sly
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
clubs:
·Packet8
·Callcentric
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: No way said by schmol :what the hell does internet radio have to do with this merger? These are 2 SATELLITE companies not internet radio stations!! Since you are talking internet radio, there are plenty of free radio stations that also transmit via internet. So now if I see this correctly, they are now competing against one another. In your eyes, it's ok for one company like Clear Channel to go and buy up all of the radio stations it can, right? Isn't that a monopoly? How many companies do you think own 90% of the major market radio stations in this country??? Last time I checked, I can only get Comcast as a internet provider in my area, no DSL no nothing. Isn't that a monopoly? Aren't I supposed to have a choice? When it comes to Free Radio and Satellite Radio, I have a choice, I can either turn on the radio and listen to the same old music every 2 hours with tons of commercials or I can "PAY" $13 a month to listen to top quality commercial free music. I could even listen to POD casts if I wanted, how about me plugging in my MP3 player to my car stereo. Do you pay for cable TV or do you use rabbit ears to get FREE tv? Same concept right? You my friend are not thinking correctly This is hilarious. You obviously didn't read the posts or else you would have though more clearly before giving your knee-jerk reaction. The whole point of the post is that the two entities are NOT competitors. Just like in your example of your limited choice of broadband providers, there is a limited choice in digital radio sources. Both are paid services but for the most part, the two technologies do not yet overlap. As technology advances and internet streaming audio is available in more markets that are currently serviced by satellite, then a monopoly would be avoided. However with the technology NOT overlapping, the merger would create a monopoly where one does not currently exist.
In case you didn't read, internet and satellite radio are similar services that are provided across different technologies. They have the POTENTIAL to compete, but until the technology improves, they can't and any satellite merger will only create a monopoly in one lucrative market.
You say you can only get Comcast as an internet provider in your area... sorry, that is not true. You have access to satellite broadband at the very least. You don't even have a monopoly with phone services. You can go cellular or VoIP... Both compete with your local phone company. Satellite radio is often the only option for people who travel and so if the two companies merge, then they will only have one choice for service.
What the crap does clear channel have to do with anything? Speaking of pulling things out of thin air. 90% ownership is still not 100% ownership. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "monopoly". It's not just an old game you know. 
Plugging your MP3 player into your car has nothing to do with this. Your MP3 player is not able to deliver live newscasts so I don't know where you are going with that. You seem to be making a point about PAID services. Nowhere in any of my posts did I complain about having to pay for radio service. You drew that conclusion on your own. Again... where are you going with that?
The issue here is by having two companies who control an entire market trying to merge. We broke apart AT&T over that and Microsoft has been hit more often than not over it... Cable and phone companies are now able to cross markets with phone companies providing video service and cable companies providing phone service. This was done in part to break apart the monopoly each had on their services. The answer here is to continue with that trend and insure that capitalism and competition are allowed to control the market... not reverse trends and allow companies to merge creating a new monopoly where a previous one didn't exist.
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato - | |
| | | | | | | | | |
The Monkey
I like bananas
Premium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: No way said by Sly :The issue here is by having two companies who control an entire market trying to merge. We broke apart AT&T over that and Microsoft has been hit more often than not over it... Cable and phone companies are now able to cross markets with phone companies providing video service and cable companies providing phone service. This was done in part to break apart the monopoly each had on their services. The answer here is to continue with that trend and insure that capitalism and competition are allowed to control the market... not reverse trends and allow companies to merge creating a new monopoly where a previous one didn't exist. There is no indication that the merged entity would have sufficient power to raise prices. Once again, the mistake here is a very narrow market definition without any evidence to suggest that definition is correct.
EDIT: what most people seem to misunderstand is that there does not need to be an exact equivalent of the product or service when defining a relevant market. If there is an alternative to which people will turn in the face of a small, non-transitory price increase, then that alternative becomes part of the definition of the relevant market.
--
The Monkey | |
| | | | | | | | | | | kinabrew
join:2002-02-01
·Comcast
1 edit | As a Sirius subscriber, I'm interested in a few of the XM channels. I think that the addition of those channels would make me more interested in the new company's product.
Free radio does help keep the prices of satellite radio in check.
Satellite radio doesn't have unique music content. If the price gets too high or if they start adding commercials, there's no incentive for the customer to choose their service over free terrestrial radio. There's nothing customers can't get elsewhere for free.
Neither Sirius nor XM have lowered their prices to compete with one another in the past. When XM realized that Sirius had higher prices, they just raised their prices to match.
Competition is needed in areas like broadband, where in many places, people only have one option. But the government has approved all kinds of mergers in that field. With the Sirius/XM merger, customers will still have plenty of choices. Don't want to pay for Sirius/XM? Listen to FM. Don't want commercials? Buy an iPod. Hate Apple? Buy a Sansa. Doesn't hold enough? Buy a multi-disc cd changer.
Heck, you can even stream music from one of the thousands of internet radio stations. There are many choices when it comes to music.
It seems to me that the government has no idea what constitutes competition and customer choice. | |
| | | | | | ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No way said by kinabrew :When XM realized that Sirius had higher prices, they just raised their prices to match. Actually, it wasn't until XM realized that people were not paying for their new online streaming of XM and not pay for the premium content (Opie and Anthony to be specific) did XM decide to raise their rates. Then they made everything "included". The only thing that is premium now is Playboy.
Luckily I got in on a 5 year agreement before the rates went up. Still have a lot of time left on that one. | |
| | | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | Satelitte Radio is and industry in and of itself. If the two merger there will only be ONE Satelitte Radio company. This is what they call a monopoly. Satelitte Radio does not compete with free radio and serves a completely different demographic due to the exclusive content and proprietary equipment. | |
| | | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
1 edit | Re: No way If one of the companies goes bankrupt and closes up shop, then there will STILL BE ONLY ONE SATELLITE RADIO COMPANY.
The government can't force a company to stay in business just to preserve competition.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
| | | | | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: No way said by emptywig :If one of the companies goes bankrupt and closes up shop, then there will STILL BE ONLY ONE SATELLITE RADIO COMPANY. The government can't force a company to stay in business just to preserve competition. wig They are not going to close shop. If they run out of money someone will buy them. Furthermore, if they can't stay in business they need to raise their prices or lower their expenditures. | |
| | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | quote:
You do know that satelitte radio competes with "free radio" as well as internet radio and IPODs...
They're not the same thing, just as terrestrial broadcast television and cable TV are related, but not the same thing. A DVD player and its rentals are also complimentary to cable TV service, but are again, not the same thing.
At the moment there are two choices for commercial free multichannel radio in my car. XM and Sirius. Internet radio does not currently work in the car so it cannot be considered competition. Maybe some day when mobile broadband has better capacity and coverage. In-car MP3 players are great but do not replace radio. Radio is a way for people to effortlessly be exposed to new music. Ipods are generally a way for people to listen to their collections. I have both in my car and would not want to be without either one.
Just as terrestrial TV's limitations spawned the cable TV business, terrestrial radio has major limitations. In my area, there is only one major music radio station that comes in clearly, and I'm in the 2nd largest city's suburb!
How is the consumer going to benefit from having only one choice in satellite radio?
quote:
It's interesting that for years all those Telco/Cable mergers are rubber stamped but mergers like DBS and Satellite radio were/are being blocked.
When AT&T and SBC merged, I didn't really lose or gain choices. I can't get anyone but SBC-now-AT&T to own the copper going to my home. When Comcast took over AT&T Broadband, I still had only one choice for a cable company.
I guess I did lose a choice in long distance service, but there's no shortage of companies offering deals on long distance.
XM and Sirius merging would be like Echostar and DirecTV merging. They didn't allow that so they shouldn't allow this.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. | |
| | | | | | |
The Monkey
I like bananas
Premium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No way said by pike :said by stickfigure :You do know that satelitte radio competes with "free radio" as well as internet radio Can you elaborate on how a paid, subscription service is defined as a competitor to a free broadcast company? I don't follow that logic. It's like comparing a car wash to a thunderstorm. -Mike I recommend reading the Horizontal Merger Guidelines available at the DOJ's website. Interesting reading, presented in a surprisingly clear way.
Also, some reading about the SSNIP test is informative: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSNIP_Test (all the usual caveats re Wikipedia).
--
The Monkey | |
| | | | | | |
The Monkey
I like bananas
Premium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No way Good find. The bottom line here is that whether you agree or disagree that the merger is pro-competitive, you need to have a least a basic understanding of the economic underpinnings of these analyses in the first place. Many of the posts in this thread are simply knee-jerk reactions without any rational basis.
--
The Monkey | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Normally, I'd agree, but since these companies are in danger of failing finanically and disappearing completely, I am in favor of this merger as a way to cut costs.
If they over time rise to profitable status, then a new competitor can be allowed into the market to compete....
It's interesting that for years all those Telco/Cable mergers are rubber stamped but mergers like DBS and Satellite radio were/are being blocked.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | unoriginal
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA
1 edit | Re: No way You typically only have one wireline competitor (either local phone or cable) in a given area. Satellite companies like Directv or XM are available nationwide so they should be subject to a different standard as their content is basically for sale to anyone that can get the signal. | |
| | | | | 
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| said by Gilitar :ALL monopolies are a bad idea and defeat the purpose of a free market. In this case the monopoly would be a lock considering that XM/Sirius owns all the licenses. I've got news for you. If this merger fails to go through one of them will end up filing for bankruptcy. Either way only one of them will survive. Bankruptcy will just be a messier way to achieve the same results.
--
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.
-- Ernestine | |
| | | 
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL
| Re: No way I believe both will be filing bankruptcy (restructure not liquidation) in the next year if the merger fails. Merging would just delay bankruptcy.
There is zero, zilch, nada, none, not gonna happen/etc chance they will let this merger happen. Democrats have too much influence now.
Even with other potential competitors on the way. Slacker.com claims to have something coming soon via satellite.
--
SunRocket - You get what you pay for! | |
| | | |
The Monkey
I like bananas
Premium
join:2000-10-08
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No way said by scooby := There is zero, zilch, nada, none, not gonna happen/etc chance they will let this merger happen. Democrats have too much influence now. It may not happen, but not because of the dems. The FCC and DOJ will decide this one and they are clearly not controlled by the dems.
--
The Monkey | |
| | | | | | |
schmol
join:2001-12-26
Windsor, PA | Re: No way Oh like XM didn't waste their money on Oprah, and those tards Opie & Anthony??? | |
| | 
Steve Mehs
Go Sabres
join:2005-07-16
| quote:
As a Sirius subscriber, I'm interested in a few of the XM channels. I think that the addition of those channels would make me more interested in the new company's product.
Then go get an XM Subscription. How do you know those channels you are interested in wouldn’t be removed, or combined with the Sirius equivalents if there are any. A merger will not give you the best of both worlds, if will give you someone else’s best of both worlds. Personally I like XM just fine the way it is, I like Sirius just fine the way it is.
quote:
There's nothing customers can't get elsewhere for free.
Please tell me on what frequencies will I find smooth electronic, contemporary jazz, death metal, southern gospel, reggae and tropical music in the Buffalo or Rochester, Ny markets
quote:
The only thing that is premium now is Playboy.
Playboy Radio has been off of XM for a few years now. It’s been revamped and is available on Sirius for free.
quote:
Also for current subscribers they will get twice the programming in a merger.
Bullshit! I already have access to 138 channels of commercial free music and another 60 or 70 channels of unique talk programming.
XM Subscriber since 8/2003 with 3 Subscriptions
Sirius Subscriber since 10/2004 with 2 Subscriptions
100% Against The Merger
--
Time Warner Cable Subscriber
Digital Cable & Road Runner Turbo
252 Channels, HD DVR & 15/1 Broadband
I Don't Want No Stinkin' Fios! | |
| | 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
| It's not a monopoly.
This is no different than cable company's. Even if there's only one cable supplier in your area you always have an option to go DSL or dial-up and I can see the FCC saying the same thing with satellite radio, you can always go to free radio or internet radio... | |
| | | Lysis
join:2005-03-30
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Tossup at this point. National Association of Broadcasters has been fighinting tooth and nail against the merger for a long time now, even claiming that satelite does not compete with their regular radios. Meanwhile the whole reason they spend so much time and money lobbying against the merger is because they know satelite is a competitor of theirs. You can bet the NAB will be flooding this call for comments from the public.
Meanwhile the satelite representative has guaranteed prices would go down, and guaranteed support for current satelite radios for a while. Also for current subscribers they will get twice the programming in a merger.
It seems much bigger companies from oil, telephone, media industries have no problems merging and now the government is meeting over and over again for such a long time over this merger, NAB sure seems to have some peoples ear. | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Tossup at this point. The market for sat radio was growing nicely. This merger put off a lot of people who don't want to obsolete their radios. I expect growth to be sluggish till this is settled. Shame too. XM and Sirius were just getting to start have positive cash and they started acting in the interest of their execs rather than their subscribers. | |
| 
kfsutops
Premium
join:2002-08-19
Brandon, FL
clubs:
| I am going against...I think... I am usually for these types of things..but this one really has me stumped.
I can't get the "prices won't go up" out of my head. This is complete bs. Prices are going up. A merger will allow them to convert their pricing structure over to the same cable tv model people love and hate today. Well you say, "they can't because they are competing with free radio." I say, bs again. Cable TV at one time competed with local tv markets..and you see how that has worked out.
Prices are going to go up significantly. Satellite will do just what cable does by raising prices to an amount that will account for the "expected" loses of customers due to that increase.
--
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" | |
| | 
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
| Re: I am going against...I think... Prices will go up either way. Even if it goes up to $20 a month it is still a good deal. I however would like to see the merged company having Howard and O&A as an add on premium tier, I wouldn't subscribe to it myself.
I have 2 XM radios for music and a Sirius radio mainly for NFL. So I would love both to combine and have Al Acarte channels from both services. | |
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Resell Xm amd sirius What should happen is XM/Sirius become one entity, then other companies resell channel packages. Since the combined spectrum is more then enough, other companies could sponser channels. So if there could be various versions of satellite radio. With many producers sharing the system. XM/Sirius become a basic provider, with other entities having addons which are enabled thru channel mappings. | |
| | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL | Re: Resell Xm amd sirius Very interesting concept | |
| | djoropallo
join:2003-10-20
Maple Shade, NJ
| Don't believe prices will not increase. I also don't believe that prices will not rise. Both companies must have some idea of what are the most popular channels and will create tier system, much like TV, and place the most listened to in a a higher tier at higher pricing. Redundant music channels will disappear, and who chooses if the XM or Sirius channel shall remain? This will enable earlier investors to profit, but I fear as commercial radio has been destroyed by corporations, so will satellite, and as always the consumer suffers. | |
| flyingjoey
join:2005-11-07
Jersey City, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Let Them Merge! How abou this...
XM & Sirius invest into a 3rd company, and then start scaling back on service on the 2 parent companies to the point that you only get 1 channel on xm and 1 on sirius. All the customers will Run to the new "competitor"... oh and make all the xm and sirus radios backward compatible.
or 2
Leave the darned satelites where they are, base the company in Canada and F... the FCC. | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC To Rule On Sirius / XM By Year's End
Here is where to file comments if you are interested
Tossup at this point.
