backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by tallcool1.. on Apr 22 at 4:17 PM

The FCC under pressure from senator to nix or reexamine high-profile, controversial satellite radio merger

Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio were long-time rivals, and the top two players in the booming satellite radio market -- that is, until Sirius offered to buy XM.  The acquisition of XM by its competitor, for $13B USD marked a landmark acquisition when it was approved by the Justice Department, after review last month.

The deal is also controversial. The merger has been blasted by many in traditional-radio as anti-competitive, and essentially creating a monopoly in the satellite radio industry.  The Justice Department insisted that the move would not impact customers, and thus merited approval.  However, a small, but growing, number of politicians are voicing opposition to the deal.

Now these critics have a major political voice at last in the form of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D. ND, a senior senator on the Senate Commerce Committee.  Dorgan blasted the deal and the "illogical" approval, warning that it would lead to higher prices for consumers.  And Dorgan and his fellow critics still have a chance at fighting the deal.  The deal faces a final approval from the Federal Communications Commission, which many see as somewhat of a rubber stamp process.

Sen. Dorgan is urging the FCC to step back and consider the merger carefully.  In a letter to FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin, he writes, "This merger is contrary to the public interest. I hope that the FCC will stand up for competition in the public interest and deny this merger."

The merger would bring together high profile entertainers such as Oprah Winfrey and shock-jock Howard Stern.  The U.S. Justice Department insisted that despite claims to the contrary, the merger would not be anti-competitive.  It argued that traditional AM/FM radio, high definition radio, MP3 players, and mobile phone audio would deliver strong competition for airtime.

Analysts say that it is unlikely that the FCC will outright overturn the Justice Department's approval at this point.  One possibility is that they may impose additional restrictions on the deal to protect the consumer.  The FCC in this phase, under U.S. law is tasked at looking past competitive issues and determining whether the communications deal serves the overall public interest well.

Sirius Chief Executive Mel Karmazin has promised good behavior in the case of a merger.  He says that with the merged company customers could buy channels individually, as well as block adult channels in packages and get refunds for them.  Sirius also announced that post-merger all XM and Sirius radios will continue to work as normal.  Sirius and Karmazin have not yet fully commented on price ramifications, though.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Maybe I am the only one...
By atwood7fan on 4/21/2008 11:17:46 AM , Rating: 3
Who actually approves of the merger? I mean right now if you want to listen to baseball and football you have to subscribe to both at $12 a month am I correct? Shouldn't this just be a benefit to the customers and not a bad thing? BTW I am a Sirius customer and I would like access to some of that XM stuff (even if I have to buy a new receiver... which I will)




RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By omnicronx on 4/21/2008 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean right now if you want to listen to baseball and football you have to subscribe to both at $12 a month am I correct?
How is the consumer at fault because the different companies have a different lineup. To become more competitive they should be adding the missing channels that the other providers have. This would result in the same outcome as a merger, except the sattelite companies would be left with the bill, not the consumer that is already paying 12$ a month. This is a good thing for both sat companies, and maybe the consumer in the very short term, but in the end, it will keep prices higher.


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/21/2008 12:01:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "To become more competitive they should be adding the missing channels that the other providers have"

They can't afford to. Both companies are hemorrhaging cash fast; neither has made so much as a plugged nickel since they were founded. Either they merge, or they die. Plain and simple.

There's still plenty of competition in the market. If satellite radio becomes more expensive, customers will simply switch to terrestrial radio, MP3s, or any of a dozen other entertainment options.


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 5
So true, if they both die there will be no competition.

However since he is a ND senator, his outlook may be a little different than the rest of the states. With ony 630K or so people in the entire state, satellite is probably more of a primary carrier than it is a luxury. My grandparents live there, and the population density is just not there to support a large number of high quality radio stations (not that there are none, just not as many). So if you want variety and the more popular shows (that tend to charge large royalites that small stations cannot afford), satellite may be your only option.

Although I don't agree with blocking the merger, this Senator at least seems to be thinking about his people for once.


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By HighWing on 4/21/2008 12:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
population density is just not there to support a large number of high quality radio stations


Just thought I would add that I live in Baltimore, Md and our local radio choices are not that great either. We lost our alternative station a few years ago and we really only have one station that plays pure Rock, IE: no Rap, R&B, pop, etc. And I could swear since 5+ of the stations are all owned by CBS radio, they ALL goto commercial at the same times.

Personally with the rise of iPods, and downloadable music, I really wonder just how much longer local radio stations will last? I know they are not going down fast, but they are facing stiffer competition on more fronts then ever before.


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By othercents on 4/21/2008 7:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Same here in Denver. We lost a couple good stations recently that changed their format to cater toward our growing Latino community. However I personally just use MP3s to get the music I want. The advertising on radio has really gone down. Most people just use the internet for research on what they need and rarely buy things from a radio ad.

Other


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By GlassHouse69 on 4/21/2008 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 3
hm, very well said

and very well informed.

you are a first on this arm-chair forum of idiots.

Myself included.


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By Oakley516 on 4/21/2008 12:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
Whose fault is it that neither company is able to make any money? Why would they hire talent and buy programming that they can not afford?

If any other business in the US did this, they would go bust without notice, and management would be to blame. If Sirius can not afford to pay Howard Stern $100 million a year without going bankrupt, then why did they offer him that?


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/21/2008 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "Whose fault is it that neither company is able to make any money? "

The governments, primarily, for previously blocking their past merger attempts.

> "If Sirius can not afford to pay Howard Stern $100 million a year without going bankrupt, then why did they offer him that? "


Primarily becaue they felt that, without Stern, their position would be still worse than it is.

In any case, you're looking at this the wrong way. The issue before the FCC is whether or not the merger will help or hurt the consumer, period. What's better for the public...one healthy company, or one or both going bankrupt, resulting in disruption, loss of service, and many consumers left holding useless equipment.


By derubermensch1 on 4/21/2008 4:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
btw, they dont pay him $100 million a year, most of his contract is tied up in sirius stock


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By Oregonian2 on 4/21/2008 2:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
If one folds, the other one will be sued and constrained due to monopoly status and be forced to close as well. Either they both live or both die.

:-)


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By 16nm on 4/21/2008 5:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They can't afford to. Both companies are hemorrhaging cash fast;


It sounds like these companies can not afford the lobbyists to tell these politians to go stuff it.


RE: Maybe I am the only one...
By tallcool1 on 4/22/2008 4:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
As a Sirius subscriber, I was first against this merger, but the more I think about it, I am now for it.
I like the option of buying what channels I want from either service. Overall operation costs should go down. You wont get into situations where certain content is only available on one or the other, which was the primary reason I had chosen Sirius over XM in the first place (NFL is only on Sirius). Keeping existing radios functional is a big deal and they are supporting that.


umm?
By omnicronx on 4/21/2008 11:34:21 AM , Rating: 1
Can someone please tell me how this is not monopolistic activity? Sattelite radio and FM radio can not be considered in the same market, one you pay for the other you do not. I do not see how the FCC can argue that prices will remain fair, when they will have absolutely no competition. Sure prices may not go up, but there is also no reason for them to go down.




RE: umm?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/21/2008 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 3
> "Sure prices may not go up, but there is also no reason for them to go down. "

Of course there is. Satellite *does* compete with terrestrial radio....most consumers don't buy satellite because it's simply not worth the money to them.

Would more than twice as many people half as much, though? Quite possibly. At some point in the future, in fact, I'd expect "basic" satellite radio to become wholly free, just like terrestrial. Only premium channels would be subscription based.


RE: umm?
By omnicronx on 4/21/2008 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At some point in the future, in fact, I'd expect "basic" satellite radio to become wholly free, just like terrestrial. Only premium channels would be subscription based.
Well if this were to happen I would be totally fine with it, but what is the guarentee. I have always expected that sattelite radio would one day take over terrestrial broadcasts, but what would be the incentive for one company to give away such a service for free. If they do not, I just do not see how another starting company would ever get off the ground against the to be giant of XM-Sirius.


RE: umm?
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 4
Of course they compete. From a strict dollar perspective your right, but when you get in your car you have a choice you can either listen to radio, cd,... or Sat. A monopoly is a danger to the consumer because the company can charge whatever the want, that is just not the case here. Yes the XM/Sirus company could charge $100 per channel, but guess what no one would subscribe. And why wouldn't they subscribe, because there is a competitor, hence no monopoly. The problem would be if there was no other acceptable options, but here there clearly is.


RE: umm?
By AntiM on 4/21/2008 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 3
Where was Senator Byron Dorgan when the FCC relaxed the ownership rules that allowed Clear Channel to buy up practically every radio station in the country and then single handedly ruin the terrestrial radio market? I don't know about other markets, but the stations in my area leave much to be desired. I'm sick of listening to classic Rock, I've heard every song a thousand times. I don't listen to country, or rap. There's not a station that plays anything compelling for me. I'm forced to listen to NPR most of the time (shhh...don't tell anybody). I think a merger of these 2 companies is the only way they can successfully compete with free terrestrial radio, and terrestrial radio definitely needs some competition. I think it will be good for consumers. Market forces will keep their prices in check and there's nothing preventing another satellite company from entering the market. I would imagine that if someone investigated, they would find Clear Channel stuffing Senator Dorgan's pockets with money.


RE: umm?
By ElFenix on 4/21/2008 5:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
that was the telecom dereg act that allowed one entity to own more than ~6 stations


RE: umm?
By SectionEight on 4/21/2008 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's like how there's only one cable company in most areas. If I want high-speed internet and more than 5 channels, I'm stuck with one (high-priced) choice (no satellite, I'm a renter). There's free (over-the-air tv) or low-cost (dial-up) alternatives, just like there is for radio. It's not the company's fault if the free alternatives are inferior compared to their services.

Satellite radio is the same deal, so who cares if it's one company or two offering it? If their service is too highly priced, they'll fold. It's not like they're shooting down any rival companies' satellites. The market is still wide open for any other players to join, only they won't based on XM and Sirius' income statments versus cost of infrastructure.


RE: umm?
By erikstarcher on 4/21/2008 2:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
If Sat radio is not competeing with FM, then why is Clear Channel so upset?


RE: umm?
By sweetsauce on 4/21/2008 3:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
Cable tv? Im pretty sure i get raped an extra 5-10% every year by Comcast for their tv service for no good reason. There is nothing at all preventing companies from charging what the market allows, so get used to it.


higher prices for who?
By ElFenix on 4/21/2008 11:18:02 AM , Rating: 4
who wants to bet this guy got a lot of clear channel and cbs radio money? of course terrestrial radio is opposed, better to compete against two unhealthy satellite radio companies than one healthy one.

and one way or another, we're going to be down to 1 satellite radio provider. this is better than bankruptcy for consumers, isn't it?




RE: higher prices for who?
By stugatz on 4/21/2008 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
Right, if one goes bankrupt, there's not a whole lot that can be done to stop the other from buying up its assets, probably even cheaper than they get during the merger. Bankruptcy just means write off's and tax loopholes for both sides, and a big screwing for the consumers/tax payers.


RE: higher prices for who?
By erikstarcher on 4/21/2008 2:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
I love this. Clear Channel doesn't want satalite raido to merge because it will create a monopoly. What do they care if they are in different business and don't compete with each other. The only 2 reasons Clear Channel would not want this merger is because they really care about the customer (not likley) and believe we will get screwed, or because they are competeing and don't want either satalite company to survive. If they are competeing than there is no monopoly.

Like ElFenix said "one way or another, we're going to be down to 1 satellite radio provider". A merger is the best for all involved, including the customer.


Too Late?
By stugatz on 4/21/2008 11:17:15 AM , Rating: 2
Whats the matter Dorgan? Didn't get your XM stock bought in time to make a killing on the merger, so kill the merger?

The merger still wont make me care about satellite radio until they drop their price to free.




RE: Too Late?
By mjcutri on 4/21/2008 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
you're exactly the kind of person that proves this merger won't create a monopoly. people will still have a choice between sat, fm, am, HD, ipod (mp3s), cds, etc.

I am currently a sirius subscriber (i travel a lot, and it makes it so much better to be able to keep one station on the whole trip if i want to) and I can't wait to be able to get the XM content.


No more annoying commercials
By viperpa on 4/21/2008 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
I understand listening to the radio for the shows but why listen to the radio for the music? I stopped listening to the radio ages ago. I hooked up a IPOD connection to my Kenwood, have about 200 songs, and all is great. No annoying commercials, same songs played, and don't have to pay a dime.




RE: No more annoying commercials
By mjcutri on 4/21/2008 1:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
how about discovering new artists that you otherwise would not have encountered. When i was in college, I had plenty of time to scour the internet for new, interesting music, but now i work, have a house, etc. and the only time i really listen to music is in the car. can't really be searching the internet while i'm driving (or shouldn't anyway), but i can listen to the radio, and traditional radio just plays the same old crap over and over and over...


Rant
By derubermensch1 on 4/21/2008 4:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
The start-up costs of launching satellites into space and designing the technology, marketing, etc is why they have no profit, not because they "hired too much talent they couldn't afford"

Someone wants satellite radio for free? Ugh, stick with your primitive speach controlled garbage you get over regular radio then. I am so glad satellite radio is a pay service and not subjective to the religious right and the second coming of christ clearchannel puports itself to be.

Also, I live in FL where 90% of the "free radio" stations are in Spanish, no thanks. This merger will only benefit consumers. Being able to choose your stations individually? Been asking for that from cable since day one.

What's interesting here is that it is taking the federal government longer to approve this merger than exxon/mobile. Go figure.

Im usually not this bitter in forums but pay for satellite radio and have a valid opinion on the issue or keep your mouth shut and resist the urge to post something in every possible forum. If youre not currently a customer or will not be in the future then no one cares what you think anyway




By callmeroy on 4/21/2008 4:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
I got a year of Sirius included with my car last year, the subscription is running out the end of this month. Ever since about March Sirius has called me twice and mailed me 3 letters (all of which btw stating "Final chance") - so they are definitely trying to keep customers I'll give them that. I told the Sirius rep on the 2nd and hopefully last phone call that I'm sorry I'm not going to pay for content with commercials.

Call me old fashion or whatever -- but its like this -- I use ad-supported software, I don't complain that their are ads in the software. I buy the licensed version of the software -- I better not see any ads. Same thing with radio -- if listening to public radio stations - I can't rightfully complain about the commercials, but you want me to pay for your satellite radio service and I still have to listen to commercials? BS!

Now while the ads was one of the biggest gripes I had the year I listened to Sirius , other gripes were a lot of the programming I found mediocre at best as well. The comedy stations were enjoyable and I got some laughs out of them but they don't have enough material -- its the same stuff re-run over and over ad-infinum. And I'm not talking over a month, I mean the same day you can hear the same bits 3 - 4 times.

Its fine for the first month or two of listening, but after that it gets stale fast.

Lastly, I think a pay for radio service is best suited for those who drive *ALOT* (or sit around and listen to radio alot - though that is foreign to me as nearly everyone I know if they on free time they are DOING things not just sitting around their radio).

I only listen to it when I'm in my car -- to work and from work mostly, for some odd reason I usually listen to CD's when I"m driving on my personal time (ie not to do with work).

So that accounts for only about 1 1/2 hours a day.

Anyway for me and all the above reasons - I'm not shocked in the least that satellite radio is struggling, and honesty I really don't care if they have soaring profits or both go under.




I love sirius
By jtkeenstyle on 4/21/2008 6:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
No one wants to read my opinion, so I'm going to be brief.

1.) Satellite radio is not just satellite radio. It's a form of media delivery. It has to compete with iPod's, cable TV, and every other form of entertainment out there. You don't have to buy satellite radio. If you don't want it you'll get your entertainment elsewhere. Thus, I say that worries of monopolistic greed are very misplaced.

2.) I am a music lover through and through. And satellite radio brings to me the variety and the depth of music that FM radio forgot about long ago. I can only hope that this medium survives, because otherwise I will spend much more per month buying albums to keep my aureal thirst satisfied.

3) It is my belief that the politicians arguing "Monopoly" are ones in the pocket of the NAB, the head of terrestrial radio. They know that they are losing listeners all the time. They should be more scared of iPod's, but whatever. Satellite radio is currently the only opposition they can bully around. I truly hope the little guy (Satellite radio) severely bloodies the nose of the complacent, stagnant and stale terrestrial radio goons that have sucked the life out of radio.




The Radios
By Radio Fact on 4/22/2008 1:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
EVERYTHING POINTS TO THE RADIOS BEING ABLE TO RECEIVE EACH OTHERS SERVICE NEEDING ONLY A SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD TO ENABLE THAT FUNCTION.

The FCC mandated that years ago and Sirius and XM said they complied.

I believe that they did not turn that function on because it would have killed XM. Sirius has much higher market share were a person has a choice. When it comes with a car they have no choice other than another brand of Car.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki