DailyTech - XM Introduces Fees to its Online Radio Service

Submit News

IT XM Introduces Fees to its Online Radio Service
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - March 6, 2007 3:32 AM

9 comment(s) - last by tmok2007.. on Mar 7 at 12:03 PM

XM's online radio service is no longer free

There's heated debate in the halls of legislation right now about the merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio -- and rightly so. The two companies are the largest in the U.S., and the prospect of them merging is causing fear of monopoly throughout the industry. One of the primary reasons why so many are against the two companies merging is the fear that prices will increase.

XM Canada just announced that starting on September 1st of 2008, XM Radio Online (XMRO) will now cost $9.99, where it was previously free. According to XM, the cost will also be introduced to existing customers.

Current XM Canada customers who are paying $12.99/month for access will now be paying $22.98/month. From now until September 1st 2008, however, existing customers will be paying $1 extra per month for the new service.

The National Association of Broadcasters, along with current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and formal Attorney General John Ashcroft are all opposed to the merger of Sirius and XM. While the two companies come up with a new name for the merged company, state and federal legislators are hustling along to find ways to stop the merger.

The FCC also voiced its opinion on the merger, indicating that it finds the move to be a highly negative impact to consumers.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

They better not past to cost onto me

By AlexWade on 3/6/2007 9:45:14 AM , Rating: 2

If XM tries to levy any extra fee for a service I don't use, I'll walk away permanently for any satellite radio, even though I was a XM early adopter. I like XM, but there is a point for enough is enough on fees.

RE: They better not past to cost onto me

By Scabies on 3/6/2007 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 4

Yeah, originally news of this merger made me think of the format war (which I do not want to debate here), simply because I no longer have to choose between the two. Now it seems more like my choice is dictated between the two, PLUS I get to pay a premium due to the lack of competition. Joy.
Luckily, I am not currently subscribed (or interested) in Sattelite Radio. Guess I never will be.

Parent

By bbomb on 3/6/2007 1:48:31 PM , Rating: 2

What I don't think the government realizes is that the current market doesn't support two companies. Both are hemorrhaging money. If they dont merge one of the two will go bankrupt and close its doors leaving still just the other company. I guess the government doesn't think that land based radio doesn't compete with XM or Sirius at all? Thats just stupid.

RE: .

By Solema on 3/7/2007 7:55:53 AM , Rating: 2

I agree. Also, I think the "competition" between the two has already directly led to increased costs to the consumer. The "competition" was what prompted Sirius to spend a ridiculous amount of money to obtain Howard Stern, and XM to throw wads of cash at Opie and Anthony. Both companies have to recoup investments like those, and that gets reflected in the price we pay. Not to mention, we can't listen to both of them without paying double for separate services.

And I as a consumer am partly why these companies are hemhorraging cash. I refuse to invest in satellite radio until I can listen to what I want on ONE service. I say bring on the merger.

Besides, who else is out there competing in the satellite radio space? If there's only two entities, and they join together, who is being hurt from the business side in this "monopoly?"

Besides, the FCC doesn't seem to care about the cable and phone companies' monopolies in their various markets, so why are they raising such a stink about this?

Parent

RE: .

By tmok2007 on 3/7/2007 12:03:06 PM , Rating: 2

Well, the role of the government is to prevent any monopoly from hurting the consumers. Monopolistic businesses can lead to higher prices and/or fewer innovations. This is a bad thing for critical and essential services, such as telephone, electricity, and water. I think satellite radio is a little different. First of all, the current market does not support both XM and Sirius to co-exist. Without the merge, one or both of them will eventually go out of business. In this view, satellite radio is currently a natural monopoly. Second, paid radio is still considered as a luxury service. There are many free alternatives to paid radio -- such as over-the-air broadcast and the hundreds (if not thousands) of free Internet radio channels. One does not HAVE to have satellite radio. One might argue that he or she drives long distances, through areas that have no over-the-air broadcast reception -- therefore, they NEED satellite radio. For these people, it is not a matter of need, but want. We all managed fine before the advent of satellite radio.

In my view, XM and Sirius may charge whatever they want. It is the market that will ultimately decide how much people are willing to pay. For those who are willing to pay, more power to them. On the other hand, for those who have limits, they can always cancel or not subscribe to the service. In any case, there is no need for the government to artificially force a natural monopoly into a duopoly.

Parent

Just Canada?

By Nick5324 on 3/6/2007 10:27:58 AM , Rating: 4

The article mentions XM Canada, anyone know if this will find it's way to US customers?

If so, I've got something to cancel.

XM Internet Radio

By Kougar on 3/6/2007 12:21:59 PM , Rating: 2

If they are going to charge to Canada, then I expect the US will shortly follow.

XM used to charge for their internet radio anyway, at about that same price.

RE: XM Internet Radio

By mydogfarted on 3/6/2007 4:39:08 PM , Rating: 2

Absolutely right. Most likely, they won't charge unless you subscribe to use the online service. No different than your cable TV provider only charging you for HBO if you want it.

Parent