Remember that resolution against the XM-Sirius merger that was passed in Alabama? Well it seems that several keen-eyed commenters have noticed that the chief sponsor of the resolution actually owns a terrestrial radio station as well as a production company.

Mike Hubbard, Alabama's House Minority Leader and the chief sponsor of a resolution against the Sirius-XM merger (HJR144) cites his own possible conflict of interest in his official bio:

"Hubbard’s company, Auburn Network, Inc., owns and operates WANI NewsTalk 1400, a commercial radio station in the Auburn/Opelika market as well as Studio 197, an audio production company serving the national broadcast industry..."

In his legislative bio, we also learn that Hubbard is a member of the Alabama Broadcasters Association which identifies itself as a trade association representing radio and televisions stations. The ABA itself has officially denounced the XM-Sirius merger, obviously using the strength of its 287 members (particularly one certain House Minority Leader) to push forward their agenda.

Conflict of interest? Nah, it's for the good of the people! 

[via The Port Chronicle]

Corporate Crime Reporter has revealed that C3SR - the consumer group that was created to oppose the merger between XM and Sirius - is in fact supported by the NAB.

Separately... and perhaps more importantly... in the recent Criterion Economics Study about the XM-Sirius merger there's a footnote  (on page 3) stating:
"The Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio is a consumer group consisting of Sirius and XM subscribers. It is supported by the National Association of Broadcasters."

Consumer Coalition For Competition In Satellite Radio (C3SR) founding member Chris Reale actually works full time at Williams Mullen Strategies - the lobbying arm of the Williams Mullen law firm - whose communications practice is headed by Julian Shepard, who just happens to be a former assistant general counsel at the NAB.

When Corporate Crime Reporter confronted Reale about who is funding C3SR, he wouldn't say, but did admit that the NAB "supports" the group. Reale refuses to identify the nature of NAB’s support.

"If we were out there in the media telling people who funded us, it would detract from support from different groups," Reale said. "I didn’t think that was a wise course."

Read more on Corporate Crime Reporter.

Read the Criterion Study (PDF) ...and be sure to specifically check Page 3, Footnote 3.

UPDATE: Add some salt to the wound, a commenter has pointed out that C3SR even links to an NAB study in a blog post. I don't mind anyone opposing the merger, but aligning yourself with the NAB doesn't help your case.

NPD Group's February sales data shows that satellite radio retail sales demand has risen slightly from January, but is still down in the annual comparison.

Year-over-year retail sales fell 33% in February, an increase from the 44% drop in January (and 46% drop in December). Remember that this time last year was when we were just beginning to slide down the Stern Effect, so YoY comparisons are going to get easier from this point forward.

The Quick Glance:

• Sirius February 2007 Retail Sales:
  Down 31% YoY
• XM February 2007 Retail Sales:
  Down 35% YoY

Marketshare:

• Sirius Feb '07 Retail Marketshare: 56%
• XM Feb '07 Retail Marketshare: 44%

Sirius continues its lead in retail marketshare, gaining a percentage point from January (if your math is rusty: Sirius had 55% retail marketshare in January, while XM had 45%). Still, considering the dismal retail sales numbers from December (particularly for XM) any signs of improvement is good news.

Baring any unforeseen hickups in production, we can easily expect retail sales YoY numbers to rise in the coming months.

Bridge Ratings has continued their study about the impact of the XM-Sirius merger on consumer interest. It's probably going to be an ongoing study because, well, it's great media bait (hell, I'm talking about it).

 

 

As with an earlier study released back in February, Bridge has found that a majority of potential subscribers (people who expressed an interest in subscribing to either one or both satellite radio providers) would rather hold out until the merger goes through before making the jump.

That majority who will wait to see if the merger passes before signing up equals 58 percent even - that's up from the 55 percent of respondents last month. A lower number of people said they'll subscribe within 60 days anyway (19% this month versus the 24% last month).

This trending says to me that XM-Sirius need to do a better job selling their current service to customers and at the same time selling the possible future service to regulators (a hard feat since media interest centers around the merger).

 

 

An additional aspect of Bridge's study is the interest in Howard Stern by current XM Satellite Radio subscribers (again, media bait.). The thing that confuses me is that the results are absolutely unchanged from the previous report. Bridge doesn't indicate a timeframe for when they polled the 1,000 XM subs, so it's hard to say for sure (I would assume it's a different set of respondents?). Either way, a whopping 88% of XM subscribers seem to care less about the ability to listen to Stern, which might explain why they subscribe to XM and not Sirius.

Read the full report on Bridge Ratings. 

In a post XM-Sirius merger scenario, would the red headed stepchild of satellite radio - WorldSpace - step in and start covering the U.S. market? Maybe so, if the FCC required the newly merged company to relinquish one of its SDARS licenses.

"We would love to look into that if that’s available," Worldspace Chief Executive Officer Noah Samara said on Monday. "We’ve always felt seamless global coverage is something the planet needs."

WorldSpace, of course, isn't banking much on this hypothetical. A heck of a lot needs to happen before broadcasting in North America becomes a reality. But it's an interesting possible side-effect if XM and Sirius are successful in merging. (Though, something tells me they rather have that second license even post-merger since using the combined spectrum is sort of the whole reason behind merging.)

[Examiner]
Thanks Rob!

WorldSpace Satellite Radio (remember them?) has announced their fourth quarter and full-year 2006 results, where subscribers have grown to a whopping 199,000.

In Q4, WorldSpace added 22,274 net subscribers ending the quarter with 199,105 subscribers worldwide, 73% higher YoY. In India, WorldSpace added 23,945 net subscribers during 4Q06, ending the year with 162,010 subscribers in India, 117% higher YoY.

It's not all peaches and cream in India though. WorldSpace continued to experience high churn rates in Q4 in India as 3-month trial packages came up for renewal. About 59% of subscribers that came up for renewal during the year had actually renewed their subscriptions to a higher pre-paid package. Youch. The good news is that WorldSpace has phased out the 3-month package and hoping to reduce churn numbers in favor of longer term prepaid plans.

Interestingly enough - WorldSpace has delayed their earnings call - citing "negotiations for a potential financing transaction" as a reason.

[Press Release] 

David Rehr, President/CEO of the fan-favorite NAB, did his best to position terrestrial radio as struggling local broadcasters fighting the good fight in his Congressional testimony. But yet in his recent letter to the FCC, Rehr talks about how a merged satellite radio threatens national radio.

February 28, 2007 - Written testimony (PDF) in front of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Antitrust Task Force:

"...media industry observers have agreed that '[s]atellite radio is a national platform,' thereby clearly differing from locally-licensed and locally-oriented terrestrial broadcast stations."

March 22, 2007 - David Rehr's Letter (PDF) to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

"A satellite radio monopoly will also thwart program access by other media, especially regional and national radio networks."

So which is it? Local or National? Hopefully someone else is picking up on these inconsistencies.
Thanks Tim! 

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and the Parents Television Council (PTC) both had words of praise over allowing satellite radio subscribers the ability to block adult-oriented channels - and to subsequently give a rebate for those blocked channels.

It's a plan that was outlined by Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin last week, as well as in Sirius and XM's official merger filing. If a subscriber wishes to block a channel (like the ever-objectionable Martha Stewart Living Radio channel), the merged Sirius-XM would give a rebate back for that channel's value.

Karmazin called it a more "à la carte" approach - a plan that both the FCC's Kevin Martin and the PTC seemed to approve of.

Martin said Karmazin's proposal "sounded, in general, like a good idea," although he has yet to fully study it. "One of the options I have encouraged," he said, "is allowing parents to block channels and also [have] the companies reimburse the price they are charging consumers for content they don't want. I think that a block and reimburse mechanism may be a good idea."

Parents Television Council Government Affairs Director Dan Isett called it "a significant step in the right direction. You finally have a major media outlet recognizing the reality about some of these subscription-based platforms."

The PTC has long been a vocal anti-indecency group (making up for a very large number of the FCC indecency complaints) and consists of over a 1,000,000 members.

[Broadcasting & Cable]

NAB President/CEO David Rehr opened up his heart and wrote in a 4-page letter to the FCC Chairman that the "two satellite radio providers has served consumers well."

Sadly the love-fest ends there (just as I was getting warmed up to Mr. Rehr), as he goes on to state - once again - that the XM-Sirius merger "violates the antitrust laws and established FCC rules." Rehr also used his favorite line saying that approving the merger would create "a government-sanctioned monopoly," etc etc etc.

Sound repetitive? You betcha, David Rehr even uses the word "monopoly" a dozen times (not including the one time he used the word "monopolistic").

But I just want to ignore all that, throw away all these hateful feelings and focus in on these kind words:

"Each [satellite radio] provider has differentiated itself with unique programming and equipment offerings."

Aw shucks Dave, that's so sweet!

[FMQB and Radio Online] 

At the recent House and Senate hearings on the XM-Sirius merger, it's amazing to see how little is understood about the next generation of multimedia delivery options. A lot of the focus seems to be on WiMAX - maybe because it's a fun buzzword - but the reality is that WiMAX is still a ways off in the distance... and yet mobile phone services (particularly 3G) are here already.

In the first House hearing, the NAB constantly noted that satellite radio is the only "nationwide, multichannel mobile audio programming service" available on the market. My instant thought was that mobile phone services were (intentionally) completely ignored, and I felt Mel Karmazin didn't seem to push that opposing view hard enough.

In the second and third hearings, Karmazin did a better job of highlighting the multimedia abilities of mobile phone networks, but he also lumped in WiMAX into the picture. But WiMAX is completely nascent, and (funny enough) the Congressmen seemed to confuse it with Wi-Fi.

The real threat comes from mobile phone services, and specifically on 3G where the speeds really begin to make a difference. The importance here is that the technology currently exists, and is a high priority by wireless carriers. There's also a massive existing subscriber base (I believe in the realm of 75% of the U.S. population) and so they have an incredible platform to build upon.

Then there's those content agreements. Sprint has a deal with the NFL and the MLB, not to mention other services like MobiRadio which offer ESPN Radio and Radio Disney through several wireless carriers. And that doesn't even include various over-the-air music offerings.

Regardless of all these offerings, the general public (and likely government officials listening to these arguments) don't think of their cellphone as a music device. A cellphone's primary function is to make phone calls. But once a company is actually able to figure out how to meld the function of making phone calls, with that of a quality listening experience, then the general public's opinion will evolve.

...did I forget to mention the iPhone?

No, a $600 touch-screen phone isn't going to instantly change the world overnight. But it's a stepping stone, and one that Apple no-doubt understands. Just like the iPod, they're not the first to come to market with this concept (music + phone), but they'll be the one to properly execute on it. And as the critical mass evolves to accept the iPhone, Apple will evolve along with it - bring wireless over-the-air services to the iPhone - at breakneck 3G speeds.

And Apple will use it's already established relationships with auto manufacturers as a stepping stone as well. Before long, there will be a cradle that you can snap your iPhone into, and have your own person tunes mixed with over-the-air wireless music and live events. The ubiquitous cellphone, and the ubiquitous iPod, will combine to become the next generation of ubiquitous radio. A nationwide multichannel audio service on a device that is globally accepted.

It's not the immediate future. But it's also not the too-distance future either.

So the next time the NAB points the finger at Satellite Radio as being a unique service - ignore the fact that they syndicate programming across hundreds of stations nationwide (and really, is that any different than using repeater towers?) - but just hand them a list of the wireless carriers and give 'em a big smile.