I just can't wait until Dave Rehr puts his spin on it. I am not a spin doctor but can sometimes see what they will do to a story but this one seems rather hard.

It will be interesting if (post-merger, assuming it happens) the new company reports subscriber counts broken down by type of subscription.

For instance, any chance they let us know how many people choose one of the "Mostly Music" packages, and don't care about the sports programming? Who thinks we'd ever hear what the most popular choice in the A La Carte packages were?

Could be interesting...

So, who really thought that lowering prices (tier wise) was going to prevent current subs from opting out of channels they dont listen to? Cmon. Its not about keeping current sub rates , its about gaining a considerable amount of "new subscribers". Those that may be on the fence about 12.95 a month and those that may see 6.99 a month a acceptable for the content. At 3.4 % of the listening audience of audio entertainment it comes down to pricing and content. This is a subscription based service and keeping a percentage @ 12.95 does what with out the new subscribers? SO yes, a % of current subs will convert their plans ( post merger) but the game is making those " I'll never pay 12.95 a month for radio" pay at least 6.99 for radio. Making the product more attractive price wise is (almost) always a winner. The concerns should be will the recognized synergies be more valuable than the lowered subs from 12.95 and how many new subs will be gained. Will SAC actually be lowered? Can content costs be lowered? Converted subs is a given, attracting new subs is the plan.

So, who really thought that lowering prices (tier wise) was going to prevent current subs from opting out of channels they dont listen to? Cmon. Its not about keeping current sub rates , its about gaining a considerable amount of "new subscribers". Those that may be on the fence about 12.95 a month and those that may see 6.99 a month a acceptable for the content. At 3.4 % of the listening audience of audio entertainment it comes down to pricing and content. This is a subscription based service and keeping a percentage @ 12.95 does what with out the new subscribers? SO yes, a % of current subs will convert their plans ( post merger) but the game is making those " I'll never pay 12.95 a month for radio" pay at least 6.99 for radio. Making the product more attractive price wise is (almost) always a winner. The concerns should be will the recognized synergies be more valuable than the lowered subs from 12.95 and how many new subs will be gained. Will SAC actually be lowered? Can content costs be lowered? Converted subs is a given, attracting new subs is the plan.

As the Net adds contuinue to dwindle it becomes obvious that the sat rad market is limited.. it could top out in the 22-30 million range. add the lower Arpu .. lowering it by 1-2 dollars across 22-30 million is 264 to 720 million in lost revenue. Wheres the billion dollars in Synergies now? Lets not forget the cost of the merger, Aditional R&D costs, Golden parachutes, and the ever increasing debt payments hat are shown on Sirius's 10k. Merger is bad for everyone Now.. not Just XM share holders.

Alos.. a "best of" offering will certinlty include Spanish stations. If I have to accept Spanish stations then this is NOT A La Carte programming.

Ha ha don't worry about the monthly sub price. 15million subscribers with exclusive OEM deals = monopoly. With backseat TV on the way as well as some sort of Wi-max service things will be just fine. I can even see them closing down the new york office in addition to many other cost cutting measures.

Ha ha don't worry about the monthly sub price. 15million subscribers with exclusive OEM deals = monopoly. With backseat TV on the way as well as some sort of Wi-max service things will be just fine. I can even see them closing down the new york office in addition to many other cost cutting measures.

What I'd like to know......What exactly will the channel lineup (for the new Sirius, and the new XM), post merger will be?? I'm an XM subscriber currently, but having previously had Sirius as well, know what Sirius and XM Channels I'd like to 'cherry pick' from, now that I have the choice (or supposedly, anyways).

>> What exactly will the channel lineup (for the new Sirius, and the new XM), post merger will be??

LOL. I'd bet you're not going to get that until the merger is either done or dead.

The diversity we all enjoy today will be substantially cut, with both services broadcasting many of the same channels. It would be great if they kept XM's music channels, which are mostly better than SIRI's.

If you like the Vault and Deeptracks, you're probably going to be SOL. If you like classical, you're only going to get one set (hopefully, XM's, but who knows). If you like Rock, some of XM's rock, and some of SIRI's rock, are going away. If you like blues, get ready for a single blues channel -- no reason to spend money producing two (even though that money is minimal).

You won't be hearing about this before the merger, because it flies in the face of the "diversity" argument they're trying to make.

I agree with what others have said above. Yes, more people will probably opt to pay for lower tier subscriptions, and bring in less money for the merged XM/Sirius, BUT I think with the lower basic pricing it will attract a lot more people, and it will probably actually bring in more money.

I think more & more people are interested in satellitle radio now, and I think all those people on the cusp of getting it, or those who will buy new cars next year with it already equipped, will jump all over satellite radio if they hear the pricing has almost been cut in half.

I know I'm praying the merger goes through. I can't wait to dump the Oprah channel and add on NFL Radio. :-)

It's December and the merger's gone through. So what's under the Christmas tree for the Golden Bear and XM? Well, the Golden Bear has an old XR9, and a thirst for satellite radio, so a next gen receiver is sure to be there along with a Best of Both package. Mrs Golden Bear hates talk radio despite being a huge Red Sox fan. She wants music and no chance Golden Bear turns it to talk when he's driving her car. So a Mostly Music plan for her and the required Next Gen receiver. And the Mother-in-law is also on the XM account. She's a mother-in-law, loves the 50's and standards, so she wants A La Carte 1 and the new receiver that makes it easy for her to find the 2-3 stations she'll be sticking to.

So how did XM do? 3 subscriptions for $27 ($13 +$7+$7) turns into 3 subscriptions for $34 ($17+$10+$7) plus 3 new receivers. I know, the family plan is supposedly still available, but that's $3 of potential savings. Either way, the new merged company just made a profit of $4-$7 a month, plus 3 new receiver sales.

Guess I'll put off buying the Rock N Road until a Next Gen version hits the market.

Ryan if you worried about ARPU dropping, as Mel has stated on every single earnings call since he started as Sirius CEO - The only way the business model works is by getting those 90% of people that just listen to free radio over to sat radio. The business model is all about subs. If you get tens of millions of more subs and your ARPU drops a couple bucks, THE MATH WORKS.

My prediction, in the next decade you are going to see half the drivers in this country listening to sat radio and half just listening to free radio.

Stack,

I don't think you'll see a lack of diversity. Obviously, redundant channels will merge, but I doubt there will be a loss of the more creative programming. They want to sell diversity, which means while you might catch the same 80's channel on each service, you'll be able to hear other channels with more character from each. Where they draw the line will be interesting.

For example, you'd expect the Jazz and Blues channels to merge, exclusive programming could fit together and the channels still have plenty of time just for music. What about the hip hop channels. Do you merge the Rhyme with Sirius' offerings? Does Raw get overtaken by Shade? Does Subsoniq's case for it's own station stregthen with access to more DJs and celebrity personalities, or does it weaken since there's too many stations as it is? I don't listen to country but I udnestand the country stations are going to face a similar situation. Broadening styles of music are facing the crunch while the rock stations seem to have plenty of representation.

Also remember Ryan, when you get that mass amount of people subscribing to sat radio advertising revenue rises with critical mass.

>>>> I know I'm praying the merger goes through. I can't wait to dump the Oprah channel and add on NFL Radio. :-)

If you want NFL, you're going to need to get a Sirius receiver and a subscription to Sirius.

Oh I get it. Economies of scale.

Ultimately, I think they'll walk away with higher revenue overall. It's all about finding that 'sweet spot' in pricing, and the average price from the 8 tiers - even when skewed to the lower end - lean towards the lower end cost. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that XM was at $9.99/month - and this works out to be higher.

For the CUSTOMER, this is a huge benefit. For Sirius/XM, it just means they need to be more effective in cost-savings and improved marketing.

at what cost? I'll tell you. Shitty sound quality.

Either they can afford to have a tiered subscriptions service right now, or they're going to have to eliminate redundant channels in order to be able to do this. I fear that with an a la carte system, the less popular channels will have to compete with the most popular ones, and they're going to get dumped. Oh, and of course the prices will start creeping up after the garden days.

"We have no choice. We're offering you the best value in satellite radio, even at $15 a month, you whiners!"

Am I the only one that saw this line?:

"A la carte programming will only be available for subscribers using new radios, which will be developed following approval of the merger. "

This changes everything. Current subs have to spend more money to get the savings, BUT here's the BIG fly in the ointment: OEMs!!!!!!

The OEM sub is stuck for probably another 2 years, and retail? Now it's really dead.

All I want is the MLB and the other sports, dont want anything else from xm

A free choice of 50 channels? Or Fifty channels of what they want us to have.. A predetermined tier, like what the satellite T.V. companies have.. Sounds way too good to be true.. SAhow us the details people.. There will be no arousal from me until I see the proof..

"A la carte programming will only be available for subscribers using new radios, which will be developed following approval of the merger."

So, Mel was full of shit when he said that we wouldn't have to change our radios. Gee, what a surprise!

Not to mention that we have yet to see what a post-merger channel line-up would look like.

Bottom line: I'm STILL against this merger.

Not a big fan of Mel, but he said you won't need a new receiver to receive the same service you receive now. This is true.

The new receivers aren't available for a year from the time the merger goes through. So wait for CES 2008, see what promises to be a HUGE SatRad display, and get excited about your 2008 Christmas present. Buying a new receiver in 18 months doesn't seem that ridiculous, especially when you consider it will have added functionality over the one you currently have.

If you don't want to buy a new receiver, use your old one and stick to paying the current subscription price. You can lock yourself in your room and pretend a merger never took place.

I guess with the A la Carte pricing, they can find out which channels nobody listens to. Then they can give them the axe before they eliminate a la carte and go to tiered pricing after a year or 2 (putting the most common a la carte channels on the top tier).

Am I the only one that enjoys the diversity of offerings 170 channels gets you? Given the option of subbing to 50 channels, it may sound good but it's a poor business move. I've gotten many friends and family to sign up but only because when my parents/siblings/friends come over I give them the channel guide and say to put on what they like. It usually isn't something I'd listen to or want in a 50 or 100 channel package but it's great to have. If all people could listen to on my sat radio was rock channels and talk/news I wouldn't have been able to convince them it was worth it. Everyone that has played around with my radios have found at least one channel that they love, then go out and sign up themselves. Once tiered programming comes around, niche channels go away and I have nothing to play my grandparents as I would never want the decades channels. And XM/Sirius lose potential subs. Great work.

The article states: "So likely the average revenue generated is going to skew more towards the $6.99/month side of the scale." Well, not if Stern is packaged in the 1 plan that costs MORE than the current subscriber rate, which is something I would expect. Stern will be in the package that includes all of Sirius, to justify the higher rate, of course. The skew will be towards Howard, whatever that rate is.

"Not a big fan of Mel, but he said you won't need a new receiver to receive the same service you receive now. This is true."

So, if I don't want to or can't shell out for a new receiver, I get to be a second-class citizen. Great. Thanks for the loyalty, XM/Sirius (Or whatever they're going go call it).

"If you don't want to buy a new receiver, use your old one and stick to paying the current subscription price. You can lock yourself in your room and pretend a merger never took place."

Unless, of course, some or all of my favorite channels no longer exist (I currently subscribe to both XM and Sirius).