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.

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! 

Sirius Satellite Radio's application for repeater towers in Hawaii and Alaska has brought on the ire of the NAB, and yet the WCS Coalition (who traditionally opposed anything regarding satellite radio repeater towers) is not opposing it.

Sirius' application for repeaters in Hawaii and Alaska are currently in a comment period where other organizations have the right to oppose or support the FCC special temporary authority application.

Traditionally, we've seen the WCS Coalition oppose these STAs, yet they've delivered a shocker and stated that they would not oppose Sirius' request for the Alaska/Hawaii repeaters - nor would they oppose 15 other repeaters. Even more crazy, the WCS Coalition will in fact no longer oppose any repeaters below 2,000 EIRP.

Yet the NAB has filed a petition opposing the repeaters. Why? Not because of any interference concerns. Nope. Their reasoning is that the original 1997 DARS license intended the repeaters to "re-transmit the information from the satellite to overcome the effects of signal blockage and multipath interference" - and that's bad. See, the NAB doesn't mind if the repeaters are used to improve satellite signal, but they don't like it if it extends the signal.

Sounds reasonable right? I didn't think so.

It's good to see that the NAB is always looking out for the public interest.

[NAB Petition to Deny (PDF)]
[Satellite Radio TechWorld]

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.

In response to the NAB's latest anti-XM/Sirius merger ad, a Sirius Satellite Radio spokesperson called it "deliberately misleading and hypocritical" and that one of the two quotations in the ad was "taken totally out of context."

"The NAB ad is deliberately misleading and hypocritical coming from people who say one thing to the Congress when they oppose our merger and the opposite in radio consolidation proceedings before the FCC and in SEC filings by their member companies," Sirius said in response to a query made by Radio & Records.

In question is the second quote in the ad, which supposedly came from Advertising Age. Sirius says the quote was taken out of context, and to prove it, they've provided a transcript of the Q&A:

Ad Age: There are questions about whether this market can sustain two players. What happens there?

Mel Karmazin: I certainly wouldn't rule out anything that is in the American public's best interest. You are dealing with two companies -- it would be great if there was a monopoly, but the second best thing is a duopoly. If the market is as big as we think it is, you're going to get two very profitable companies. There is nothing inherent that would preclude the companies from having interoperable radio or shared content. It's not the current business plan, but nothing would stop that.  

Two questions later in the “Advertising Age” interview, Karmazin is asked if he is opposed to the notion of a merger with XM:  

Ad Age: You're not opposed to it?

Mel Karmazin: The business model we are following is that we are an independent company. We don't need to combine with anybody.

[Radio & Records] 

Since MasterCard wasn't too happy over the NAB stealing their brand identity (ironic?), the NAB has put together a new anti-satellite radio ad campaign. Just in time for today's hearing, how convenient.

This time around, they're using quotes from Mel Karmazin to push their agenda. See below:

The NAB's new anti-Sirius/XM merger ad - which parodies the MasterCard "priceless" campaign - has reportedly brought the complaint of copyright infringement from MasterCard.

The ad features a big "credit card" with XM-Sirius over MasterCard's familiar red and orange circles.

Underneath it the ad copy reads:

Howard Stern = $500 million for five years
Major League Baseball = $650 million for eleven years
National Football League = $220 million for seven years
Oprah Winfrey = $55 million for three years
Martha Stewart = $30 million for four years

Asking for a government bailout after making bad business decisions... PRICELESS.

In an NAB memo, the NAB's EVP/Marketing & Communications and Regulatory Affairs Michelle Lehman wrote that the ad "has already garnered a buzz on Capitol Hill and some earned media hits -- reporters really got a kick out of it!" (like OMG!) Lehman added that "MasterCard was not so amused" and NAB assured them that "the ad would go no further."

[Radio Online]

(I'm trying to find the ad, if anyone has it please email me.) UPDATE: Well that was fast. Check out the NAB "Priceless" ad after the jump. (Thanks Tim!)

NAB president David Rehr has so vehemently opposed the XM-Sirius merger to such a level that it has helped solidify the point to some lawmakers that satellite radio and terrestrial radio directly compete.

Well, now it seems that Rehr is trying to do some damage control. He has written a letter to Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Antitrust Task Force, to help clarify his points.

And amazingly enough, David Rehr is now stating that satellite radio is not in the same market as terrestrial radio is. Somehow, miraculously, satellite only competes "one way" with terrestrial radio. It's a fabulous attempt to backpedal, especially since many of the NAB's members have already declared satellite radio as a competitive threat in their own SEC filings (which constitute admissions made under the law).

Rehr also goes on to say that iPods, Internet Radio and Cell Phone Music services don't compete either, because they don't have comparable sound quality, aren't conveniently accessed in vehicles.

It's truly an amazing attempt at damage control, but you have to hand it to Rehr... he's a fighter.

[View Full Letter (PDF)] 

For you lazy-clickers, the full text of the letter is also available after the jump... 

From the not-in-my-backyard department. While the Copyright Royalty Board has issued an absolutely ridiculous decision to dramatically increase Internet radio royalty rates to a per-song/per-listener basis, it seems that the NAB has now turned into the defenders of new technology.

Commenting on the CRB's proposal, NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said, "It's a disappointing decision. If it stands, there will be less music choice for consumers, and a technology will get stifled in its infancy." 

Ain't that the most hypocritical noble statement ever?

[via Radio Ink]
Thanks Roger!