And so the countdown begins until they change the wording on their web site.

This argument is either specious or simply uninformed.

The true meaning of "competition" depends on the context. Does satellite radio "compete" with terrestrial radio in the sense that both provide broadcast content? Of course.

That does not make them "competitors", nor does it mean terrestrial is a "substitute" for satellite radio within the meaning of the merger approval process. While they "compete" in one sense, they are in radically different businesses. If one looks at similarities vs. differences, for example, the picture become clearer:

Similarities

- Both terrestrial and satellite radio broadcast content to receivers within the United States

Differences

- Sat Radio broadcast 100+ channels, terrestrial broadcasts one or at most, a few
- Sat Radio is fee-based, terrestrial is ad-supported
- Sat Radio channels are available nationwide, terrestrial for a few miles
- Sat Radio channels are organized by genre, terrestrial, anything goes
- Sat Radio by its nature has a vast number of programs produced in-house, whereas no terrestrial broadcast channels have the facilities for such productions
- Sat Radio can make ALL NFL, MLB, or other sports games available nationwide, terrestrial can broadcast only a few in any given region
- Some programming, such as C-SPAN, FNC, and CNN, are available on Sat Radio but not on terrestrial.

I think the list could go on for a while. But it is obvious that terrestrial radio is not a "substitute" for sat radio in any meaningful sense. That isn't to say that a fast-talking salesman like Mel can't CONVINCE people they're the same; but if one looks at the slightest bit analytically, the differences are substantial.

StackPointer's argument is interesting, but I'm not sure i buy it. I feel your kind of saying that a prius and a hummer are not in competition. One is small and eco friendly, while the other gives you room to haul people and things, and to go where roads can't take you. In the they are both cars that get you from point a to point b.

Sat and ter. radio are both audio entertainment for the car and house. Though they have two dofferent business models, they compete directly.

You're right: that IS one way to define competition. Personally, I look at it in the non-business sense:

I used to listen to terrestrial radio, including its commercials and songs. I no longer listen to terrestrial radio. Now, I listen to satellite radio exclusively because of a greater variety of songs and fewer--if any--commercials. Therefore, satellite radio competed for my listenership and won.

Sorry, a Prius & Hummer are not competitors, they are priced and marketed to a completely different target. I guess a Yugo and BMW would be considered competitiors in your silly, broad comparison. Why not a motorcycle and a tractor-trailor, they're both motor vehicles right?

I comletely agree w/Stack that the two are not competitors. Especially considering sat radio is also uncensored and not under the rule of the FCC (yet). Same way that HBO isn't a competitor to ABC. They are two distinct markets with their own rules and business models.

pfreak, your so silly, of course a motorcycle doesn't compete with an 18 wheeler, ones for privite use, the other professional commerce. Now the BMW and yugo, they do compete for a piece of the consumer automotive market. Now of course you could always segment this down further to SUV's, Luxury, economy and so on, but all of these segments make up the automotive market place of which there is a finite customer base they compete for. And these segments do compete with each other by marketing and spinning image: outdoors, status, or money savings.

sat and terr make up the delivered audio entertainment market, a segment of the audio entertaiment market. They do directly compete for the same consumers ear,regardless of whether that ear likes rock, Rap, or NPR

of course they compete. a Hummer is substantially different from the Prius, but they still compete: they are both targeted on the individual driver, and the individual driver can only drive one at a time. therefore, they both directly compete for a driver.

audio entertainment is the same thing. TerrRad and iPods may offer a different product than SatRad does...but at the end of the day, they are all competing for the same individual set of ears, attention, and loyalty.

>>> I comletely agree w/Stack that the two are not competitors. Especially considering sat radio is also uncensored and not under the rule of the FCC (yet). Same way that HBO isn't a competitor to ABC. They are two distinct markets with their own rules and business models.

Your post is totally correct, however, the point I was after is that they differ, and don't compete, in many ways which are far more substantive than the single thing they have in common (i.e., broadcasting the signal).

My view is that if you look at it analytically you simply cannot conclude these are direct competitors, although one takes customers from the other.

The same type of analysis can be applied to the Ipod vs. Sat Radio, and the differences, are once again, far more substantial than the similarities.

Taking the larger view of "competition" as Mel is wanting us to do clearly makes no sense in the context of the merger -- it is merely a tactic that was designed to counter the argument that what's good for Sat TV is good for Sat Radio. No matter how convoluted it is, with the right guy selling it, it sounds great.

Just as importantly, it is a fact that the competitive landscape isn't markedly different from when the sat radio companies signed on to this deal.

- We had terrestrial then, we have it now;
- We had recorded music then (CDs), we have recorded music now (Ipods)

A strong argument can be made that the Ipod is more convenient than hauling around CDs -- after all, I could never have carried around 2,000 CDs in my car, and now I can with my Ipod. But I could (and did) carry around 50 CDs in my car before sat radio. Never after.

More important than this argument, however, is the fact that the Ipod cannot deliver realtime broadcasts of sports, news, and events, weather, traffic conditions, etc. This is a major and fundamental difference. Furthermore, it cannot provide any kind of interactive (call-in) forum, and one has to specifically purchase and own the music on the Ipod, thus making it difficult, expensive, or too much trouble to find and purchase new music, whereas sat radio enables me to find new music for one monthly fee.

To suggest these are all one and the same (i.e., that any of the alternatives serve as adequate "substitutes") is downright absurd. And frankly, there is something unbecoming about a CEO arguing that his own product is not better on its own merits than so-called "competitors".

>>> They do directly compete for the same consumers ear,regardless of whether that ear likes rock, Rap, or NPR

Not even the issue.

Is terrestrial a "substitute" for sat radio? Of course not. Not unless you can tell me how I can get FNC, CNN, EVERY NFL and MLB GAME, traffic in major cities, the Weather Channel, and Navtraffic & XM Weather, all on terrestrial radio.

Case closed.

Hi, Walt from the NAB here. The operative issue here still remains the disproportionate (and disproportionately negative) effect on advertising markets that an XM-SIrius monopoly would produce. This doesn't mean the two compete, only that they're in the same advertising ecosystem. We've said time and time again the merger is unfair because terrestrial CAN'T compete in national markets, as satellite does.

I know you'd like to paint us as desperate, but when your own commenters don't seem to agree with a post slamming the NAB, well... I might reassess that conclusion.

Competition between vehicles. Do you want to ride in my Hummer or my Prius. They both get from point A to point B. You pick.

Competition between fruit. Do you want an apple or an orange? They are both fruit and I have them in both my Prius and Hummer. You pick.

While we are traveling to point B from point A, do want to listen to my iPod, HD radio, AM radio, FM radio, CD, Cassette, cell phone radio, satellite radio or internet radio should we hit some hot spots or stop at McDonalds? I have them all in both vehicles. You pick.

So, StackPointer, let me ask you this...Is XM a competitor to Sirius? Sure they both broadcast to radios using satellites, so they are superficially in the same market, but only one offers every NFL game. Only one offers a folk music channel. Only one offers EWTN. If any of those content-related exclusives matter to you as a listener, then the other service is not "substituable" for the other. If I want to listen to out-of-market baseball games, Sirius is not (in your words) an "adequate 'substitute'".

- Sat Radio broadcast 100+ channels, terrestrial broadcasts one or at most, a few
A limitation of old technology disqualifies them as competitors? Pffft.

- Sat Radio is fee-based, terrestrial is ad-supported
SatRad receives ad money as well.

- Sat Radio channels are available nationwide, terrestrial for a few miles
Clear channel onws over 1200 radio stations with many bbroadcasting the exact same thing. They are just as nationwide as XM or Sirius. Just because you move out of the range of one tower, does not mean you are no longer under CC umbrella ella ella ella.

- Sat Radio channels are organized by genre, terrestrial, anything goes
Radiostations are organized by genre as well.

- Sat Radio by its nature has a vast number of programs produced in-house, whereas no terrestrial broadcast channels have the facilities for such productions
I don't get how this means they do not compete. Instead of one station producing 8 shows, they just pay for the syndication rights of 8 shows produced somewhere else. Apples, oranges.

- Sat Radio can make ALL NFL, MLB, or other sports games available nationwide, terrestrial can broadcast only a few in any given region
Again, old technology is no excuse.

- Some programming, such as C-SPAN, FNC, and CNN, are available on Sat Radio but not on terrestrial.
So what you're saying is Burger King does not compete with McDonald's because McDonald's does not sell whoppers?

>>Is terrestrial a "substitute" for sat radio? Of course not. Not unless you can tell me how I can get FNC, CNN, EVERY NFL and MLB GAME, traffic in major cities, the Weather Channel, and Navtraffic & XM Weather, all on terrestrial radio.

It is true that these channels are not on terresteral radio, but they are all on comcast (even the commercial free music). By what you have written does that make Cable TV a competitor?

Ter radio is a substitute because you can choose to listen to it instead of sat radio and still get music, radio and sports. I often turn off the sat to listen to good old local AM sports talk radio.

>>> So, StackPointer, let me ask you this...Is XM a competitor to Sirius? Sure they both broadcast to radios using satellites, so they are superficially in the same market, but only one offers every NFL game. Only one offers a folk music channel. Only one offers EWTN. If any of those content-related exclusives matter to you as a listener, then the other service is not "substituable" for the other. If I want to listen to out-of-market baseball games, Sirius is not (in your words) an "adequate 'substitute'".

In my opinion, Sirius is not an adequate substitute for XM, because it doesn't have the higher quality music content that XM does. But your point is taken.

But to your point -- while the example you point out -- NFL/MLB, different music channels, these are differences between the services -- BUT, if you look at my earlier post, you will see that they are substantially identical EXCEPT for the choice of content. This is NOT the case with terrestrial versus satellite.

Let's assume that XM delivered nationwide service but Sirius didn't, and XM delivered 170 channels and Sirius only delivered 3. Clearly, this would tip the scales against Sirius being an adequate substitute for XM.

Normally, these kinds of issues come down to some kind of reasonableness test, and I think my original post set out some reasonable distinguishing features -- I do not, however, believe the same can be said of yours. Do two terrestrial stations in NYC not "compete" because once carries NFL games and the other carries MLB? Of course, not.

>>> Ter radio is a substitute because you can choose to listen to it instead of sat radio and still get music, radio and sports. I often turn off the sat to listen to good old local AM sports talk radio.

I'm sorry, but that does not make it a "substitute" in any way, shape or form. What you or I do just has nothing to do with it.

If I cannot get 70 channels of commercial free music on terrestrial radio, it is not a substitute for XM. I don't see how a rational person can argue with this point. Yes, you can choose to listen to a jackhammer break up pavement if you want to, but it is not a "substitute" for 70 channels of commercial free music.

The entire goal of Mel and the others is to remove the nuance from this issue, and judging from the posts on this thread, he has been pretty successful. But you can't say a railroad is a substitute for a trucking company, you can say a Harley is a substitute for a Toyota, and you cannot say that terrestrial is a substitute for sat radio. You cannot ignore the fundamentally distinguishing features of these different media.

@Walt: Please... don't come at me with that "your own commenters disagree" line. People disagree and I welcome it. Hell, I love it. That's part of the discussion, and intelligent posts like StackPointer's add to that conversation. It gets people thinking.

But you wouldn't understand that would you? That's not the NAB way.

"terrestrial CAN'T compete in national markets"

Sure you can, and you do.
That's why the Radio Advertising Bureau measures national revenue. That's why you have Premiere syndicating content nationwide across thousands of radio stations. All of which have better coverage (like indoor reception) and ubiquitous access (AM/FM radios in every home and every car in America).

Throw in HD Radio and you now have doubled or tripled channel capacity for each radio station. All Broadcasters need to do is coordinate their channel selections, while using a single content provider (Clear Channel FormatLab anyone?).

...and that would destroy satellite radio. Period.

If I can't listen to the Cleveland Indians game on Sirius...Therefore, I substitute a couple hours to regular free radio. I can't listen to MLB on my Sirius. I'm sure Sirius would love to have the MLB contract, but can't because XM has it. So now Sirius is competing against XM and free radio for my few hours of time. If the post game show is on and I feel interested to listen, there's another half hour of my time from getting back to satellite. Then I hear a good song before going back to turning on the Sirius and give a few more minutes.

So by this time, I'm 4hrs into listening to regular radio and starting to wonder why I'm paying for my radio. I don't have to, it's all free for me to listen to everyday...24/7. That's why the NAB is competing. They want people that have satellite to come back to support regular free radio, and they want people to regularly listen to free radio to keep listening to free radio. Thing is regular radio has some 200M listeners. Satellite has 15M. Terrestrial radio, if they were good at what they did and gave people a reason to listen, could crush satellite simply by being free. And they don't know how to. Which is why I'm paying for Sirius.

The arguement that satellite and free radio aren't competing is hilariously wrong.

I'm sorry.. I'm starting to rethink my stance on my anti-merger standing.. I think it might be ok.. I'm of the mindset that if the merger happens I won't slit my wrists.. I mean anything is better then regular A.M or F.M. radio... I read on a forum that a guy asked someone about whether the merger would be a good idea and what it might mean in the end and the person said it might be a good thing because they won't take any more risks with programming prices.. That is paying way too much for some programming... So maybe...

>> >The arguement that satellite and free radio aren't competing is hilariously wrong.

I don't know of anyone who has made that "arguement". In fact, my first post under this topic said:

"The true meaning of "competition" depends on the context. Does satellite radio "compete" with terrestrial radio in the sense that both provide broadcast content? Of course."

To think that the analysis comes down to something as simplistic as some of you make it is downright funny. It is a very complex subject and cannot be resolved by the elementary school logic you want to apply to it. You have to look beyond the mere form of the "competition" and comprehend its substance -- a much more difficult thing to do.

I believe the FCC and DOJ will be up to the task, *IF* the political forces don't overwhelm the process.

>>> I used to listen to terrestrial radio, including its commercials and songs. I no longer listen to terrestrial radio. Now, I listen to satellite radio exclusively because of a greater variety of songs and fewer--if any--commercials. Therefore, satellite radio competed for my listenership and won.

This was not a "competition" among alternative providers of a service.

You chose a different product (service) altogether.

Just a simple question for Walt.

What does the "N" stand for in NAB?

Ok, another question.

Is it fair Toyota is selling cars in America and driving GM out of business?

walt

the fcc defined the market in 1997 clearly as "aural"meaning for the ear, which is also defined as vision, melvins out gunned all the players while having the case made for the launch of interoperable devices either way.

why not talk about the damage hdradio will cause to smaller broadcasters across america when lauched with ads by the major chains and used for more reduced rate advertising or tossed in free just to close the deal on another sister station...

admit it the earthly industry has to much available inventory currently by their own making.
take a look in your own house first.

thats also one of the biggest reasons stations are being unloaded currently.

forty percent of all radio stations on average yearly, operate at a loss and that data is from over the last ten years ,four of which were prior to the launch of satellite!

audio alone going forward wont be enough to support the old model and thats what the nab is trying to stop dead in its tracks. at the expense of the public.

you guys could care less about the public and its service,its about dollars going forward.

walt

I sort of like this quote from ibiquity and its only a couple of weeks old

“Radio industry executives are fond of pointing out how the medium has bounced back from past challenges. But fighting off television in the 1950s, 8-tracks in the ’70s and CD’s in the 90’s, fades in comparison to what radio faces today. At one time radio had the monopoly on “wireless.” It was the only technology to reach people in cars, on the streets, even on the beach. Today, all media is becoming wireless and portable, The medium is also fighting a competitive battle on all fronts, losing ad market share to the internet, satellite radio and all sorts of other new media," said Priestley.

Q. "Mr Rehr, does terrestrial radio broadcast music"?... A. "Yes"
Q. "Mr Karmazin, does Satrad broadcast music"? ........ A. "Yes"
Q. "Mr Rehr, does terrestrial radio broadcast news"?.... A. "Yes"
Q. "Mr Karmazin, does Satrad broadcast news"?.......... A. "Yes"
Q. "Mr Rehr, does terrestrial radio broadcast sports"?... A. "Yes"
Q. "Mr Karmazin, does Satrad broacast sports"?........... A. "Yes"

Walt

I believe the NAB is doing what the NAB is supposed to do -- representing the interests of its membership. I, for one, certainly can't blame you for that.

Mel Karmazin is definitely serving the interests of Sirius as he sees them. Why are people not bashing HIM as they are NAB?

1. You're on a very pro-satellite radio blog (and I am one of satellite radio's biggest supporters). You have to expect people here to view you as the enemy.

2. Mel has framed the entire merger concept in such a way that uninformed consumers (which almost everyone, here and elsewhere, is) would think he is out for THEIR interests, not those of Sirius. NAB, OTOH, comes across as totally self-interested.

There was a time and place for monopolies to exist. This isn't it. Today, this country is about choice, freedom, capitalism, compensation for hard work, and the right to be a smart consumer. Monopoly flies in the face of everything America stands for.

Were NAB using its substantial voice to explain

In your own words, Stack:

"That is, after all, what is happening here -- you have consumers choosing satellite radio (product B) over terrestrial radio (product A)."

What do you think competition means? Do two companies have to produce the exact same product without any differentiation to be considered competition? Satellite radio has to differentiate itself to compete with FREE. Just like every other company out there, they have to differentiate themselves and offer something distinct in order to make money, whether it be lower prices, higher quality, or unique products. Satellite radio obviously doesn't offer lower prices than terrestrial radio (or pirated music, for that matter), so they have to provide higher quality unique programming to compete with the free alternatives. If they don't provide a distinctly better service at a reasonable price, they will get destroyed by the alternatives. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPETITION.

•Anonymous Coward- "Do two companies have to produce the exact same product without any differentiation to be considered competition? Satellite radio has to differentiate itself to compete with FREE..."

Exactly.

•Stack
My point before, although simple, is just that simple...The fact free radio isn't close to what it can be. A FREE form of entertainment with music, sports, political talk shows, entertainment, news. Especially now in the "Get HD radio with no monthly fees" days, where stations now have 2-3 channels they can produce, taking a city having 25 stations to 25-75 channels of Free entertainment per city. Free HD radio could end up being huge and destroy people's interest in ever getting satellite. If one company plays alternative, classic, comedy HD stations. Another offers alternative and jazz. Yet another offers only country. One offers Alternative, oldies, and 80's. Sports channels. Etc. All free with a $50 HD reciever. Satellite is still $50 reciever and at least $6 a month for 50 stations post merger and $12.95 if no merger. Making a city with 63 stations have more content than a satelite's minimum 50 channels. But, terrestrial radio is run by people who don't program stations all that great anymore. Some have 45min uninterupted music than 8min of commercials and then a song and more commercials, repeating the playlist after about 4 hours. Burning people out on music. Everyday, same 25 songs in the same time slots. Heaven forbid a band has a new hit, it's played every 2 1/2 hours. Local morning shows all try to sound like Howard or O&A. I've never heard a better sports show than Ferrall on Sirius. And I live in a city where we have O&A, and not to start shit on here because it's not the point, I realize why I'd probably not listen to Howard if he went back to terrestrial radio. Censorship is awful. This country's soft with everything that offends. And radio is the worst outlet for free speech in my opinion. There's a lot of my competition thoughts.

Terrestrial radio has tons of free options now and more coming, and I'd still rather pay.

Technology is allowing all of those companies to increasingly compete with each other… it’s harder and harder to say broadcasters aren’t competing cable operators, that cable operators aren’t competing with telephone companies, that wire-line and wireless aren’t competing for consumers’ dollars and attention. What you’re seeing is the technology increasingly allowing all of these platforms to compete head to head.”

-above quote, Kevin Martin, Fcc Chairman.

>> THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPETITION.

Once again, I remind you that nobody is saying satellite radio doesn't compete in some sense of the word with terrestrial. Obviously, it does.

The question is whether they are sufficiently similar for terrestrial to be a "substitute" for satellite, and the answer is clearly "no".

The sat radio "product" encompasses innumerable fundamental improvements over the terrestrial "product" that terrestrial simply cannot deliver -- any one of which differentiates the two adequately to prevent it from being a substitute. I just don't know how any thinking person can argue with this.

Antitrust legislation provides that no merger can be allowed when the effect will be to decrease competition or "tend toward" creation of a monopoly. This provision, taken alone, is obviously and indisputably sufficient to stop the merger. No cogent argument can be made that the merger doesn't, at the minimum, "tend toward" a monopoly and it ABSOLUTELY decreases competition significantly. Mel's wishes notwithstanding, DOJ and FCC need to follow the law, and the law is clear.

Honestly, I cannot say it better than Herb Kohl did -- his letter says the same things I'm saying but he does a much better job of it -- and he does have some credibility to make the statement given his committee membership.

http://kohl.senate.gov/~kohl/press/07/05/2007606801.html

The question is whether they are sufficiently similar for terrestrial to be a "substitute" for satellite, and the answer is clearly "no".

Would you say that Toyota clearly does not compete with GM? You are. Idiot.

"Free HD radio could end up being huge and destroy people's interest in ever getting satellite. If one company plays alternative, classic, comedy HD stations. Another offers alternative and jazz. Yet another offers only country. One offers Alternative, oldies, and 80's. Sports channels. Etc. All free with a $50 HD reciever. Satellite is still $50 reciever and at least $6 a month for 50 stations post merger and $12.95 if no merger. Making a city with 63 stations have more content than a satelite's minimum 50 channels."

This is probably the most sensible counter-argument to the things I've said that I have seen in this thread. Does a city's entire terrestrial radio base -- 50 stations or whatever -- serve as a "substitute" for satellite radio? That does, after all, give you some of the diversity of satellilte radio.

The answer is "no".

It still lacks the national coverage, the ad-free music, the exclusive music and other content, the uncensored content, etc., -- all attributes of sat radio and NOT of terrestrial.

One could envision scenarios where aggregation of terrestrial radio stations, even on a national basis, to create a pay-radio business, could become an effective substitute. When that happens, that would be something to consider.

For now, there continues to be no competing product that is close enough to being what satellite radio is to be considered a "substitute", and elimination of one of two competitors will definitely reduce competition, substantially, and therefore the merger cannot be allowed.

"The question is whether they are sufficiently similar for terrestrial to be a "substitute" for satellite, and the answer is clearly "no"."

FM may be no substitute for SATRAD, but SATRAD makes a great substitute of FM. It works both ways. Just because the technology is outdated and cannot offer the same benefits as SATRAD does not mean they do not compete!

How can the combined forces of 1200 Clear Channel radio stations NOT be a monopoly, but the merger of XM and Sirius will be? You are either completely fucking DAFT or a paid Clear Channel shill.

2 = Monopoly?
8300 = A gigantic media cartel pretending to be a bunch of mom and pop stations looking for government protection from the 2 big bad satellite companies.

If there is not substitute for satellite radio, then why do 50% of trial subs choose not to continue their subscription after their trial? Do they travel in silence after the trial ends?

How about the 2.4% churn? Do all of the subscribers that leave every month just switch back and forth between Sirius and XM? Or do they just cut off their audio entertainment completely, since there is no substitute?

Maybe, for a few people who can't imagine life without Stern, there isn't a substitute. Or maybe for people who "need" to listen to an out-of-market sports team in their car, there isn't a substitute. But for the other 99% of the rational public, there are tons of options out there, most of which are significantly cheaper than satellite radio.

These last two posts reflect a near-total misunderstanding of what the issues are.

The question is, "Will merger of the two competitors in a duopoly, creating a monopoly, have a material anticompetitive effect?" For the life of me I cannot understand how a person can argue that it doesn't.

You guys are all over the place, but nobody actually addresses the issue: The sat radio product is radically different from ANY OTHER FORM of entertainment. As such, a merger of the only two providers in that business will create a monopoly in that product.

I've shown how there are many more differences between satellite and terrestrial than there are similarities, the differences are material and substantial, and thus the "product" of satellite radio bears no real similarity to that of the purported "competition". XM and SIrius are indisputably engaged in a duopoly, and any merger of a duopoly has got to create a monopoly.

Again, how is the ownership of 1200 stations just fine, but the combination of just 2 constitute a monopoly? Because the anticompetitive effect you speak of would be detrimental to the stations represented by the NAB, and NOT detrimental to the general public.

I think the BlackBerry is a monopoly. And StackPointer agrees with me.

No, you're completely misunderstanding an extremely simple principle - if someone chooses not to subscribe to satellite radio (i.e. 95% of the eligible population), and they instead choose to listen to something else, then there is obviously at least one viable substitute.

You don't want commercials? Listen to your own music (iPod, cd's, etc). You want 50 different genres? Listen to your own music. You don't want to have to download songs or buy CD's? Listen to free FM. You want news and talk? Listen to free AM. You want better sound quality? Listen to HD Radio.

You're forced to listen to Stern or O&A uncensored? Get a life.
You're a fan of an out-of-market sports team and you're on the road during the game? Just TIVO the damn game.

Satellite radio is just an upgrade for a price. If you like it, you pay for it. If it's not worth it, then just do like the other 95% of the population and listen to something else.

And on another note: is there anything that would stop terrestrial radio (or WiMax) from starting a digital subscription service with more channels?

I'm tired of this, I'm going to get lunch at Chipotle. By the way Stack, you should investigate their monopoly, since there are no direct substitutes for their nationwide fast-casual burrito chain.

Anonymous Coward. Sorry Qdoba is a competitor. Damn they are good.

>>> Again, how is the ownership of 1200 stations just fine, but the combination of just 2 constitute a monopoly? Because the anticompetitive effect you speak of would be detrimental to the stations represented by the NAB, and NOT detrimental to the general public.

I've not argued that it is "just fine" -- however, owning 1200 out of 15000 stations is not nearly as anticompetitive as owning 1 out of 1.

>>> No, you're completely misunderstanding an extremely simple principle - if someone chooses not to subscribe to satellite radio (i.e. 95% of the eligible population), and they instead choose to listen to something else, then there is obviously at least one viable substitute.

You obviously don't comprehend the meaning of "substitute" as it is intended within the context of this discussion.

You obviously don't comprehend the meaning of "substitute" as it is intended within the context of this discussion.

You cannot be serious. You should check out mental health sites and leave the rest of us alone.

So then is the definition of "substitute" tailored to fit your own personal tastes?

"You obviously don't comprehend the meaning of "substitute" as it is intended within the context of this discussion.

Yeah, you're not using it as StackPointer intended since his is the only perspective that matters within the context of this discussion.

"I've not argued that it is "just fine" -- however, owning 1200 out of 15000 stations is not nearly as anticompetitive as owning 1 out of 1."

There are nowhere near 15,000 commercial FM radio station in the United States.

>> There are nowhere near 15,000 commercial FM radio station in the United States.

Oh, I get it. So now, we're going to define the universe as "Commercial FM Stations" and exclude AM stations and PBS. FM is a substitute for Sat Radio but AM or public stations are not a substitute for "Commercial FM".

What crap. This is like arguing with a group of eight year olds.

>> So then is the definition of "substitute" tailored to fit your own personal tastes?

No. It is MEL who is trying to redefine the term. In previous merger applications, the market has been defined narrowly -- for example, in the sat TV market, cable was not considered as competition.

Now comes Mel, wanting to change the definition of the market.

It isn't ME defining it for MY tastes, it is MEL trying to redefine it for his.

You are obviously very much on top of what's going on ....

That's an expert lesson in how to deflect a losing position in an argument - the ad hominem defense.

>>> That's an expert lesson in how to deflect a losing position in an argument - the ad hominem defense.

That was no ad hominem attack -- that was a statement of fact.

You people have been arguing the point all day that the market should be defined in the broadest possible terms, then, out of the blue, you change your argument 180 degrees to try to support the opposite position.

It is like arguing with children. You have presented absolutely ZERO rationale for your argument. Just look how ridiculous your position is --

"You're forced to listen to Stern or O&A uncensored? Get a life.
You're a fan of an out-of-market sports team and you're on the road during the game? Just TIVO the damn game."

These remarks are childish in the context of this argument. I have no doubt that either of my children, when 8 years old, could have put forth a more rational argument. Call it ad hominem if you like, I say it is telling it like it is.

You're right. It is completely irrational to suggest that people don't have to pay for Howard Stern or for out-of-market sports broadcasting. It would be much more mature to suggest that people will have no choice but to pay for a satellite radio monopoly, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population gets their audio entertainment from other sources.

>>>>>> You're right. It is completely irrational to suggest that people don't have to pay for Howard Stern or for out-of-market sports broadcasting. It would be much more mature to suggest that people will have no choice but to pay for a satellite radio monopoly, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population gets their audio entertainment from other sources.

Your argument is absurd on its face.

If you want Howard Stern there is no other place to get it. Instead of addressing that FACT, you say, "Oh, if you want Howard Stern, get a life". Well, some people want Howard Stern. WTF business is of yours? They should be able to have Howard Stern if they want to pay to get it and they should not be exposed to monopoly pricing power when XM and Sirius both agreed as a precondition to grant of their respective licenses that such a monopoly would not be permitted.

If you want uncensored O&A, there is no other place to get it. If you want CNN or Fox News Channel in your car as you drive, no other place. If you want classical music on your radio, in most areas of the country there is no other place to get it. If you want a channel dedicated to Folk music or Blues, there is no other place to get it in most areas of the nation.

Okay, enough time has been wasted on you. You can have the last word.

"You people have been arguing the point all day that the market should be defined in the broadest possible terms, then, out of the blue, you change your argument 180 degrees to try to support the opposite position."

The NAB made the argument FOR US when they conceded the fact that satellite radio IS competition. Scroll up to the original post! You are the one doing the spinning!

THE NAB DEFINED THE MARKET, AND THEY INCLUDED SATRAD, IPODS, AND INTERNET RADIO! Scroll up! There it is in plain English. There's no need to interpret in certain contexts. It's RIGHT THERE!

Now you're manipulating quotes, an even better strategy.

Here's the original quote:
"You're forced to listen to Stern or O&A uncensored? Get a life."

and your manipulated version:
"Oh, if you want Howard Stern, get a life".

Oh, and by the way, I chose to subscribe to Sirius for Howard Stern. But in no way am I forced to pay for him, even if Sirius has a monopoly on him, by your logic.

I would hate to see what would happen to Fox News and classical, folk, and blues music if satellite radio went away, because we all know that satellite radio is the only place where you hear those things.

You can have the last word.

Thanks StackPointless, because my Daddy always told me not to argue with idiots since they would only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I knew I shouldn't have brought up Howard and O&A, because like I said, they're not the point of this merger. Sure they bring in more subscribers for each company, but they're not what I was talking about. I was comparing free radio's programming for sounding like them. Nevermind them.

The Tivo your favorite teams, and get a life's are all silly point since not everyone has Tivo. I can't keep track of who said what. But, there is nothing stopping terrestrial radio from making a pay service of some sort. IF...and I say if, I hear that radio can't make commercial free programming again I'll laugh. Let's say your the biggest station in your market and you're turning close enough to a profit to, now alter one of your HD stations to commercial free with DJs. If this station starts to succeed, other stations will pick up on it and start altering their programming if possible. A very likely and possible chain of events with HD radio. I've already heard of stations going commercial free and DJs mentioning products in 'casual' conversation. It's lame, but completely possible.

The sports is a huge bonus for satellite, but if you have cable or Direct TV you can get every NFL and MLB in your local market and nationwide. I only have Comcast available to me (monopoly), and I'm not paying for the super expensive tier of programming to get NFL Network. By choice I don't pay. Mostly because my cable bill is $75 dollars after I upgraded to the most basic digital programming package w/HD. Shouldn't HD be a free upgrade like terrestrial radio's offering? Honestly, I'm considering just getting rid of cable. It's expensive for the 20 stations I seldom watch.

There's so many alternatives and competitors in entertainment nowadays. I hardly see satellite being considered a threatening monopoly of terrestrial radio, iPods, CDs, TV, Live concerts, plays, DVDs. I really think that if the merger doesn't go through, people will start to see that 'a la carte' cheaper deals won't be available. Dual recievers probably won't be made for sale at retail. Maybe even one of the two companies going under down the line, not saying that it couldn't happen post-merger if prices aren't basicaly fixed for a decent length of time. There's points either way, but my thoughts are still seeing this as not a monopoly in the field of audio entertainment. It's too vast a playing fiield.

>>>>>>>> I hardly see satellite being considered a threatening monopoly of terrestrial radio, iPods, CDs, TV, Live concerts, plays, DVDs. I really think that if the merger doesn't go through, people will start to see that 'a la carte' cheaper deals won't be available. Dual recievers probably won't be made for sale at retail.

I actually agree with this -- satellite radio is not [ever] going to threaten these other forms of entertainment. Sat Radio could go away tomorrow and they would all live on, and even benefit from sat radio's demise.

This is not, however, at odds with the concept that merging the players in a satellite radio duopoly creates a sat radio monopoly.

Everyone who is interested in this subject ought to read the opinion in FTC v. Staples, Inc. (970 F. Supp. 1066) in which the court determined that " ... the mere fact that a firm may be termed a competitor in the overall marketplace does not necessarily require that it be included in the relevant product market for antitrust purposes." The court determined that "office supply superstores are simply different in scale and appearance" and that one has to consider the "entire shopping experience" in determining what the competitive environment is for antitrust purposes.

This case is very much on-point with the XM/Sirius merger. While there were many, many other outlets for "office supplies", the unique shopping experience of Stables and Office Depot versus the others was determinative in limiting the market for antitrust purposes (and the merger was not allowed as a result).

This is analogous to the XM/Sirius merger -- the fact that the individual items (channels, songs, whatever) may be available elsewhere is NOT determinative. The fact is that XM and Sirius provide a particular "shopping experience" just as Office Depot and Staples do versus buying office supplies at a Walmart or other place.

what happened to having the last word?