BUSTED (sorta): Wisconsin AG ex-boss has ties to terrestrial

lol @ 3 hrs 40 min to drop knowledge on this bungus.

ryan, you're awesome dude. seriously.

I really can't take all the credit, someone in on the Yahoo Message Boards uncovered the initial link between Tommy Thompson and JB Van Hollen.

But it was a pain to follow the breadcrumbs around from there.... so thank you. :)

expose em all......one....by....one...........

What a shock....I wish they would be truthful: "I oppose the merger because I have connections with those involved with a dying medium." These a$$holes would oppose cures for cancer because their constituents are cancer researchers who could lose their jobs.

What a shock....I wish they would be truthful: "I oppose the merger because I have connections with those involved with a dying medium." These a$$holes would oppose cures for cancer because their constituents are cancer researchers who could lose their jobs.

to funny...exposed by the public for what they really...

Why are you bashing this fellow but not the auto OEMs and a plethora of others with FINANCIAL ties to satellite radio who have been convinced or coerced into making statements FAVORING the merger?

The man stands for reelection and has to face the voters on his position and does not stand to gain financially by his statement. This is more than you can say about the likes of the NAACP, AARP and the other bogus endorsements coming from within the sat radio industry!

If you want to bash people for "pulling strings" to get support, it is odd that you would bash an AG (who does, after all, make a compelling legal argument [i.e., a monopoly is not good for consumers]), yet not complain about the ridiculous lobbying campaign waged by XM and Sirius or the misleading remarks made by the companies.

@iband: He's pro-life too. :)

"J.B. Van Hollen is endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin, which means he doesn't support abortion in ANY circumstance. Not if you are raped, not if in the case of incest, and not even if your life is in danger by going through childbirth."

[WisOpinion]

I'm still Paul R. Nelson. Check it out now.

"The man stands for reelection and has to face the voters on his position and does not stand to gain financially by his statement. "

stackpointer, you must be really niave. Did you read about how much Thompson has helped Van Hollen is his career?

Calling something a monopoly plays well with the public, unless the public knows its a lie. Fortunately we know the public overwhelmingly supports the merger and understand that satellite radio is not a monopoly within the audio entertainment market. We only wait for unbiased folks at the DOJ to come to the same conclusion (not the politicians).

Ryan, thanks for digging even deeper than the original poster.

I agree with Stack. It sees there is this "I oppose the merge because of I got ties to Terr" wirh some of these people/organizations but when it comes to Auto Makers, Retailers, and Special Interest, it seems the fact of "I support the merger because I have ties to Sat" are ignored. I hope the FCC and the DOJ notice both of this and make a decision that has neither influenced. I understand the blog has a slant, but this pro-merger slant has gone way out instead of looking a neutral stand.

>>>>>Calling something a monopoly plays well with the public, unless the public knows its a lie. Fortunately we know the public overwhelmingly supports the merger and understand that satellite radio is not a monopoly within the audio entertainment market.

We do NOT know that the "public ...supports the merger". We know that, in a poll specifically designed to get such a response, the public supported the merger. Had the public been asked, "Do you think the satellite radio duopoly should be allowed to merge, creating a monopoly?", the "public's" response would undoubtedly been, "Hell, NO!". Had the public been asked, "Do you think the department of justice should allow the two satellite radio companies to merge with the result being there is no competition in the industry?", the answer would have been "No WAY!".

To say that the public overwhelmingly supports the merger is at best a blatant misrepresentation.

>>>> We only wait for unbiased folks at the DOJ to come to the same conclusion (not the politicians).

Yeah, should the DOJ come out and oppose the merger on anticompetitive grounds (as they should do, and I certainly HOPE they will do), we'll see how "unbiased' you think they are.

>>>> stackpointer, you must be really niave. Did you read about how much Thompson has helped Van Hollen is his career?

I'm not naive; merely realistic. If the man believed the voters would punish him for the position, I seriously doubt he would have taken it.

I prefer to wait and see whether other AGs join him.

SP
Why would anyone ask someone if you support a monopoly when its not a monopoly? Talk about asking a loaded question -- obviously that's the way the NAB wants to frame it, but get real..

In the absence of any other public survey, the independent survey conducted by the firm hired by Sirius and XM stands as positive evidence of overwhelming publc support for the merger. Undeniable.

You sir, have no evidence to the contrary, just your opinions. Yes we wait for the DOJ and I am confident an unbiased DOJ will reach the conclusion that this merger is not anti-competitive. The same conclusion 2 former FCC Chairman have reached as well as a number of other unbiased FCC analysts. Not biased politicians with terrestrial radio ties.

"The same conclusion 2 former FCC Chairman have reached as well as a number of other unbiased FCC analysts." If you think these former FCC chairmen are unbiased and have no ties to XM or Sirius you are truly naive. And who are these "unbiased FCC analysts" speak of? The economists hired by XM and Sirius? Wall St analysts who don't want XM to go bankrupt? Face it, there's nobody who is unbiased who thinks the merger should pass. The only truly independent expert FCC analysts who've talked about the merger -- Consumer Fed of America, Common Cause, American Antitrust Institute -- all think its a terrible idea for consumers.

>>>>>>>>Why would anyone ask someone if you support a monopoly when its not a monopoly? Talk about asking a loaded question -- obviously that's the way the NAB wants to frame it, but get real..

It obviously does create a monopoly, and I cannot imagine how some people have concluded otherwise.

You have two competitors in an industry, there is no reasonably direct substitute for the service, and the merger of those two will result in a single entity which has all of the attributes of a monopoly.

Should the DOJ decide not to enforce the antitrust laws in this instance, we may as well eliminate antitrust law altogether -- such an action would, effectively, lead to a logical conclusion that NO merger can create a monopoly.

A merger of the last two milk producers on earth would not create a monopoly because people could always drink grape juice. The argument lacks any reason, whatsoever.

There's another classic analogy from Stack. Obviously, satellite radio is comparable to milk. You're clearly not insulting our intelligence.

Except that about 90% of the population drinks milk as opposed to about 4% that subscribe to satellite radio. And except for the fact that milk is a necessity and satellite radio is a luxury. And except for the fact that they have absolutely nothing alike.

Go do a random survey of people on the street and ask the following questions Stack:
"Do you feel that grape juice is a substitute for milk?"
"Do you feel that iPods and terrestrial radio are a substitute for satellite radio?"

It doesn't matter what you can "prove" Stack, all that matters is how the average (non-fanatical) subscriber feels about satellite radio. If enough people are willing to cancel if prices go up or channels get cut, then none of your analysis matters, because customers will police the merger.

You can "prove" that just about any company is a monopoly if you stretch it enough, but it doesn't matter one bit if consumers feel like they have other options. When 2 companies combine for only 5% of radio listeners, and they are both losing billions of dollars, it is pretty clear that consumers have other options, whether or not you can distort logic to prove that satellite radio is not a replaceable service.

>>>> Obviously, satellite radio is comparable to milk. You're clearly not insulting our intelligence.

Obviously.

>>>> Except that about 90% of the population drinks milk as opposed to about 4% that subscribe to satellite radio. And except for the fact that milk is a necessity and satellite radio is a luxury.

Assuming, arguendo, that your assertions are correct, could you please cite some relevant antitrust law that requires DOJ to take into account either (a) the percentage of the population that uses the product, or (b) whether a product is a necessity?

>>> And except for the fact that they have absolutely nothing alike.

Nothing alike? Milk is at least as much "alike" grape juice as Ipods or terrestrial radio are "alike" satellite radio. Milk and grape juice are both consumable liquids, after all.

>>> Go do a random survey of people on the street and ask the following questions Stack:
"Do you feel that grape juice is a substitute for milk?"
"Do you feel that iPods and terrestrial radio are a substitute for satellite radio?"

Again, totally irrelevant. As I previously pointed out, the public's "opinion" in these matters have not one thing to do with it. DOJ is to make its determination based on their interpretation of the law. Why you think public opinion has something to do with it is beyond me.

>>>> It doesn't matter what you can "prove" Stack, all that matters is how the average (non-fanatical) subscriber feels about satellite radio.

How average subscribers "feel" has nothing to do with this process.

>>>> You can "prove" that just about any company is a monopoly if you stretch it enough, but it doesn't matter one bit if consumers feel like they have other options.

Right. Milk drinkers have the option to drink grape juice.

>>> >When 2 companies combine for only 5% of radio listeners, and they are both losing billions of dollars, it is pretty clear that consumers have other options, whether or not you can distort logic to prove that satellite radio is not a replaceable service.

Your argument falls flat on its face. The FCC suggested, when it instituted the ban on a single licensee, that the combined listenership might only be 4-5% after five years. Furthermore, both companies, in the early days, would have told you that the current subscriber numbers at this point in time would be impressive. Look at their own projections from '01.

The fact of the matter is that the merger isn't necessitated by "competition". The companies will tell us, even today, that they are on target with their projections. Will XM have the 20M subs it projected by 2010? Doubtful; but it could easily be 15M -- and that 20M projection came when it was not having to share subscribers with Sirius.

I'm comfortable with DOJ making the call. If they cave and allow it, fine. I think they recognize that it would be a huge mistake to let the only two milk companies merge just because people have many, many choices of other things to drink.

, it is necessitated by wild spending on SIRI's part.

The difference between this guy opposing the merger and the Auto manufacturers and Retailers being pro-merger are very different.

Everyone knows who Toyota, Honda, Circuit City and Radio Shack are. They do not hide the fact that they are involved with Satellite radio and cleary state their partnerships with Sirius and XM.

This guy coming out against the merger is using his clout and stature to oppose it and not being up front as to why. If he is being asked by someone who opposes it and agrees with them, he should mention so in his statement. For example, he could have said; I am against this merger due to the fact that my constituants and close friends involve in this industry have vested interests in Terrestrial radio and this would cause great harm to their industry in the form of, yada, yada yada, etc, make excuses/argument here.

This would have been better then letting someone else go out and discover it letting them believe he is hiding something. Why the whole secret hide my past and relationships with people who are involved in terrestrial. If he is an honest person and up front, this would have made him look like less of a bad person.

Just be up front. There is no reason to lie or hide his relationships with said individuals.

>>> This guy coming out against the merger is using his clout and stature to oppose it and not being up front as to why.

I don't know how you can read the remarks and make that claim; he was very specific as to WHY he opposed the merger:

"In his letter to the DOJ, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said the combination of Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. would create a monopoly that would be bad for consumers."

"The proposed merger would eliminate competition in the satellite radio industry and the combined XM-Sirius companies would be free to raise prices, stifle innovation, and reduce program diversity," wrote the Republican Attorney General.

"... XM and Sirius offer a unique range of live sports, weather and news. Consumers may be forced to pay more for what they already get under the companies' proposed post-merger pricing plan, he said."

It is far and away a more solid argument than the vast majority of arguments that have been put forth by other organizations. He is a state AG whose responsibility it is to protect the residents from monopolies. He stated his PROFESSIONAL, LEGAL opinion that the merger will create a monopoly and should be blocked.

His remarks are, in no way, inappropriate. It is well within the scope of his office to express HIS LEGAL OPINION on such matters, and the fact that he happens to know, or even know very well, someone in the radio business in no way compromises his argument.

If there are any specious arguments being tossed around it is the idea that, because he [presumably] agrees with Tommy Thompson, he should be recused from protecting his voters from a monopoly. Hell, who in politics DOESN'T know someone in the radio or sat radio business?

This is almost comical. You are not fooling anyone. If you want anyone to respect your opinion, quit making ridiculous analogies. Satellite radio is nothing like the milk industry. Satellite radio is nothing like the car industry. Are you so blindly devoted that you cannot tell the difference?

"As I previously pointed out, the public's "opinion" in these matters have not one thing to do with it. DOJ is to make its determination based on their interpretation of the law. Why you think public opinion has something to do with it is beyond me"

Are you kidding me? You will get support from neither the pro nor anti-merger side on this statement. So the entire decision should depend on a privileged few who may or may not even listen to satellite radio?

The entire basis for the merger decision is on whether or not it benefits the consumer, so subscribers (and potential subscribers) should carry the most weight in this decision. You are trying to dictate your opinion, as a fanatical XM subscriber, that we will not have a choice after the merger - meanwhile, the rational subscribers here realize they have the power to cancel and listen to something else if the company tries any funny business.

Stop trying to tell us what we should think, and do not tell us that our opinion means nothing. We will decide if we want to send this company our money every month.

Here I'll put it in plain English for everyone:

Terrestrial, BAAAAD
Satellite, GOOOOD

'nuff said

The fact that he might (and apparently does) have ties to Terrestrial Radio should not be surprising. I mean, why would the Attorney General of a state, much less WISCONSIN, waste their time concerning this or any merger?

What was his opinion on AT&T and Bellsouth? Did he write a letter when AOL and Time Warner joined forces? Hmmm, I bet not....

Figured it out.

I once thought that you were a pro-Sirius shill, trying to make the merger go through for the financial benefit of Mel and Howard. The merger would slam together two companies going in such drastically different creative directions...it seems like the combined entity would be nothing but bad. I wondered why anyone would want such a wrong-headed merger to go through...it didn't make sense to me at all.

Of course now it does. You're obviously in favor of the merger because you're working for terrestrial radio. This whole thing is a complete sham, isn't it?

This is not about merging Sirius and XM. It's about weakening and ultimately destroying satellite radio by illegally eliminating competition.

Why else would you fight so hard to destroy not one but two successful companies? Why else would you work so hard to paint the NAB and terrestrial radio as the villains in this? It's to divert attention from yourself, your masters, and their true intentions. You must in fact work with them, and for them...and this is nothing but a counter-intelligence program.

Nice try.

>>>> Are you kidding me? You will get support from neither the pro nor anti-merger side on this statement.

I don't want anyone's support. Just stating facts as I see them.

>>>> So the entire decision should depend on a privileged few who may or may not even listen to satellite radio?

The "entire" decision encompasses FCC, and I've not discussed their view, because frankly, I believe the DOJ will make the decision.

>>> The entire basis for the merger decision is on whether or not it benefits the consumer, so subscribers (and potential subscribers) should carry the most weight in this decision.

The DOJ will not be looking at whether it benefits the consumer. The DOJ's mandate is to make a determination as to whether the merger will be anticompetitive and to take legal action accordingly. It is inconceivable to me that the DOJ will conclude that a merger of both of the competitors in a single industry would NOT be anticompetitive. And if they DO make that decision, they had best be prepared for an onslaught of entities wanting to merge based on the precedent they will set.

If DOJ finds that the merger is anticompetitive, they do not have the statutory authority to say, "Well, it is anticompetitive, but we think that won't harm consumers". There are certain exceptions, and if they aren't met, they will need to challenge the merger. What they CAN do is interpret the market definition. IMO, it would be foolish for DOJ to expand the definition of the market as XM/SIRI is asking them to do.

>>>> You are trying to dictate your opinion, as a fanatical XM subscriber, that we will not have a choice after the merger

I have done no such think. I simply believe that the law does not permit the DOJ to rule in favor of creating a monopoly, absent certain exceptions which I believe do not exist in this case. Businesses should be able to reasonably expect some consistency in the application of the law, and for DOJ to NOT challenge the merger would be inconsistent with their actions in Whole Foods, Staples, and other similar cases where market definition was challenged by the merger participants.

Apparently, you're pretty emotional about it. For me, it is entirely a logical process. I have no doubt that the small investment I have in XM currently would benefit [temporarily] from announcement of the merger's passage. However, my longer-term interest is in seeing the service succeed, and competition will best accomplish this.

Honestly, I find it downright idiotic that some people believe creating a monopoly will benefit consumers. But I don't resent your right to think it, if you choose to.

I am the emotional one? To be completely honest, satellite radio could die tomorrow and I wouldn't care one bit. I am a marginal subscriber at best. But I think it's absolutely retarded how much attention has been paid to this merger vs how little it actually affects the general public. Phone companies and oil companies merge without the least bit of scrutiny,while there are 3 congressional hearing and 10 months of work to decide on a merger on a luxury service that charges $13 a month to about 4% of the US? That's 3 cups of Starbucks, seriously! People have to have oil and phones - but most people couldn't care less about satellite radio. If you don't like it, don't subscribe! I just don't understand why you care so much. Are you that passionate about not having to download music to your iPod?

Regardless of whether or not they merge, they still need more subscribers to survive, so they'll still be forced to do whatever it takes to keep those subscribers. What am I missing here?

Even if you can "prove" they are a monopoly, they will not suddenly have monopoly power. God forbid 2 companies try to make a profit after $10 billion in losses/investments.

Stack, Stack, Stack, don't you get it? You make no sense. Now JB makes perfect sense to me and I am sure others as well. Is it the majority that just doesn't get it vs. you or what?

>>>> But I think it's absolutely retarded how much attention has been paid to this merger vs how little it actually affects the general public. Phone companies and oil companies merge without the least bit of scrutiny,while there are 3 congressional hearing and 10 months of work to decide on a merger on a luxury service that charges $13 a month to about 4% of the US?

Apparently, you weren't around when AT&T was broken up -- because it was certainly a big deal, and I remember it well.

But none of these other mergers are mergers to a monopoly. That is the fundamental difference. XM and Sirius want to create a monopoly, and worse, they do not want the "strings" attached that normally we attach to monopolies (like regulation by public utility commissions). Further, they want a merger AFTER they committed under essential identical competitive circumstances to no merger as a term of receiving the spectrum. Now, they want to change that.

You simply cannot compare a merger that creates a monopoly with one that is not apt to materially affect competition.

>>> People have to have oil and phones - but most people couldn't care less about satellite radio. If you don't like it, don't subscribe! I just don't understand why you care so much.

There are a lot of reasons *I* care and they're probably about as good as the reasons you care enough to be here at midnight making these posts. But more than anything, I believe allowing the merger will have long-term negative consequences for Free Enterprise, and that to me, is a pretty big deal. If this merger is permitted, it will expand the range of arguments that can be employed as a basis for permitting a merger to monopoly. A bad idea IMO.

>>> Are you that passionate about not having to download music to your iPod?

I have a couple Ipods, both full, but only of my own stuff. I never, ever purchase tracks from ITunes and I doubt I ever will. Every time I take a road trip I take 110GB worth of Ipod music with me, and at most it usually gets about 15% of my listening time. Why?

Because most of what I want to listen to simply isn't on an Ipod. And it isn't on terrestrial radio, either. Most of what I want to listen to is available in one place only, and that is on XM (and when in one of my cars, Sirius).

>>> Regardless of whether or not they merge, they still need more subscribers to survive, so they'll still be forced to do whatever it takes to keep those subscribers. What am I missing here?

What you're missing is that competition breeds innovation, and a lack of it breeds complacency. Period, end of story. No way around it.

>>> Even if you can "prove" they are a monopoly, they will not suddenly have monopoly power. God forbid 2 companies try to make a profit after $10 billion in losses/investments.

There is no end to this. Monopolies are usually bad, unregulated ones are always bad, and I'm against them. If you're for them, good for you. I hope you don't get what you want.

What exactly is your definition of competition Stack? Do multiple companies have to produce the exact same product without any differentiation whatsoever? Because almost every single retail product in the universe has some sort of monopoly, including Sirius (exclusive Howard) and XM (MLB). By your logic, any company who files for a patent should be broken up under antitrust law, since, after all, you expect the "DOJ to enforce the law".

Ask yourself this - where do XM and Sirius get their new subscribers from? Do they just compete to steal subscribers from each other? Or do they get their subscribers from free radio (terrestrial and internet) and iPod fans? Are these not the people for whom they innovate?

I guarantee you that at least 90% of new subscribers to Sirius come from somewhere other than XM (and vice versa). The merger will not suddenly change this fact. They will still have to innovate to convince outsiders to subscribe. They still have to answer the question, "Why should I pay for radio?" Period, end of story. No way around it.

>>> Is it the majority that just doesn't get it vs. you or what?

Good question. I would say some people are just more susceptible to being sucked in by fast-talking snake oil salesmen than are others. It takes a pretty damned good salesman to convince thinking people that they will be better off purchasing a service from a monopoly.

Monopoly, monopoly, enough with that already. If you can get the same product from somewhere else there IS NO MONOPOLY. It's like saying Coke has a monopoly on their soda. Why not let another company put out soda with Coke's formula? Because... follow me here.. you can get... wait for it.. OTHER SODAS from OTHER COMPANIES. Just like we can all get music from a ton of places any time we want. It's not a monopoly if I can get what you're offering from somewhere else. And don't get into specifics because then you're back to the Coke argument (not specifically the exact soda as Pepsi or RC).

I think Stack believes that if he says the word "monopoly" loud enough and often enough, someone might actually believe him.

I'm sure there are some legitimate concerns on the anti-merger side of the fence (bandwidth usage, perhaps?), but a monopoly is not one of them. They still have to convince people to leave the free alternatives, same as always.

it can *really* be a monopoly only if it acts and functions like a monopoly.

in a *real* monopoly, one that hurts consumers, the company can jack up prices or shorten demand at its free will because the consumer simply *must* have the product, and is willing to pay any price to get it. like milk. or electricity. or gas.

in a monopoly, the company can behave like that and thrive.

XiriuM, in its merged and "monopolistic" form, simply cannot thrive or even exist under such behavior, because its paying customers...the revenue it generates in order to stay in business...simply won't pay for it; they don't have to.

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...chances are its a duck. this merger is an entirely different animal all together.

"I'm sure there are some legitimate concerns on the anti-merger side of the fence (bandwidth usage, perhaps?), but a monopoly is not one of them. They still have to convince people to leave the free alternatives, same as always."

It may not be a monopoly in the truest form of the word, but it is different from its "free" counterparts.

Nobody thought cable TV would dominate, like it does now, back in the 80's, but it not only competes with free (over-the-air), but cable companies had no problem whatsoever in raising prices, even with several free alternatives.

Think the same thing won't happen with satellite radio? Think again.

I'm with Stack.

Sadam had weapons of mass destruction.

The insurgency is in its last throes.

The surge is working.

And the Sirius/XM merger will create a monopoly.

>>> If you can get the same product from somewhere else there IS NO MONOPOLY.

Totally, 100% agree.

Unfortunately, you CANNOT get the same product Sirius and XM offer from any other place. Sorry, you just can't do it.

You cannot get 70 channels of broadcast commercial free music on a nationwide basis. You cannot get real time broadcast of EVERY MLB or NFL game, nationwide. You cannot get real time broadcast of FNC, CNN, CSPAN. You cannot get multiple channels of classical music on the radio in the vast majority of the country.

The satellite radio "product" is vastly different from ANY OTHER SINGLE PRODUCT in existence. That, people, means when you merger XM and Sirius you get a monopoly.

>>> If you can get the same product from somewhere else there IS NO MONOPOLY.

Totally, 100% agree.

Unfortunately, you CANNOT get the same product Sirius and XM offer from any other place. Sorry, you just can't do it.

You cannot get 70 channels of broadcast commercial free music on a nationwide basis. You cannot get real time broadcast of EVERY MLB or NFL game, nationwide. You cannot get real time broadcast of FNC, CNN, CSPAN. You cannot get multiple channels of classical music on the radio in the vast majority of the country.

The satellite radio "product" is vastly different from ANY OTHER SINGLE PRODUCT in existence. That, people, means when you merger XM and Sirius you get a monopoly.

Forget the term "monopoly" -- that isn't even a REQUIREMENT for DOJ to block the merger. The question is whether competition will be materially decreased, and it is absolutely inarguable that it will be. And this is the reason DOJ should act to block the merger.

You can get terrestrial radio from thousands of different sources. Not a monopoly. Clear Channel, at its station-buying worst, was not deemed a monopoly...even though there were some very small markets in which they owned EVERY station. This is because there were other stations owned by other companies, even if they were 20 or 30 miles away.

You can get satellite radio from TWO sources. Only two. There were only two licenses granted, yes? When they become one, you won't have competition and you won't have any real choice. The very definition of monopoly. Anyone that believes otherwise is out of their friggin' mind. And wrong. Period.

NO merger. None. Never, ever, ever.

You are an idiot!

Tommy Thompson has come out for the merger. His quote was that it would have "no impact either way" on Armada's efforts.

So much for your conspiracies, now how about an apollogy to all those you smeared?

Get a clue. Get a f**ing life.

I'm so glad someone out there exposed this phoney for who he really is. Let's get the message out that we will not tolerate this sh*t.

It's simple. Satellite radio competes with regular radio. The National Association of Broadcasters has spent millions of dollars lobbying against the merger. Unlike regular radio, It is a pay service. It is a luxury. If it fails to deliver compelling programming or prices rise people simply will discontinue service. Where is the potential monoploy?

The merger would only benefit the consumer by offering a greater variety of programming. I'm a Sirius subscriber but wish I could listen to baseball which is exclusive to XM.