dslreports logo
Options for the Sirius XM Merger
Both sides and a possible solution

We’re in the midst of the 180 day “shot clock” for the FCC review of opinions on the Sirius / XM Merger and those opinions are coming out strong on both sides.

The Americans for Tax Reform and The 60 Plus Association both say that the merger would create a more appealing, family-friendly product. “Former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, an economist, released a study of the proposed satellite merger; he concludes consumers would benefit from the union due to reined-in prices and more programming choice.” And this Washington Times editorial says it’s a “good merger” because it is not anti-competitive and is “clearly in the interest of consumers”. Even the NAACP has come out on the side of support.

On the opposite side of the debate, the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters registered their opposition with the FCC, saying that the merger “would create a monopoly that would diminish service and lead to anti-competitive practices”. A 72-member bipartisan group of Congressional leaders agrees that says that “sanctioning the marriage of the only competitors in the satellite radio market would create a monopoly which would be devastating to consumers.”

Perhaps instead of allowing the merger, the FCC can look into the suggestions of Michael Hartleib to update firmware to allow for interoperable radios that can switch easily between XM and Sirius.


Most recommended from 84 comments



ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium Member
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

2 recommendations

ColorBASIC

Premium Member

Taking longer than Exxon

If terrestrial broadcasters says the merger is bad, then it's obviously good. 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. 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. Consumers would benefit hugely from being able to buy a single radio and getting all the programming.

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.

Meanwhile the Exxon merger which actually MATTERED to people as well as being a national security issue went through in record time.

I have to question a gov't who spends more time worried about Howard Stern than they do about Exxon.
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

2 recommendations

bmn

People talking out of their a$$...

The Americans for Tax Reform and The 60 Plus Association both say that the merger would create a more appealing, family-friendly product.
And they base that line of bullshit on what facts ? They seriously believe that Sirius and XM are suddenly going to stop playing the uncensored versions of songs, start bleeping out the F-word, etc. and start sounding more like the crap that is called terrestrial radio ? How much you want to bet "more family-friendly" means no electronic stations because electronic music supposedly encourages drug use ?

Seriously, a more "family-friendly" product... That statement right there is enough to make me want to oppose the merger.

The second satellite starts being like regular radio - all pussified because there might be children listening - I'm putting my receiver on Ebay and saying good riddance... The new company can have the spineless tightwads who want censored radio.