XM and Sirius together spent a total of $810,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby the federal government, yet the NAB spent a total of $4.3 million during the same period, according to a disclosure form.

XM Satellite Radio spent $580,000, according to public records. Sirius Satellite Radio lobbying firms - the Paul Laxalt Group, Quinn Gillespie & Associates and Ricchetti Inc. - spent $230,000 total through separate filings. A fourth lobbyist, the Amani Group, has not filed a lobbying report yet.

The NAB, which represents roughly 7,000 radio stations, lobbied on various issues including the satellite radio merger, according to the Senate’s public records office. In addition to Congress, the NAB used the $4.3 million to lobby the FCC and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Under a 1995 law, lobbyists are required to disclose any activity that could influence executive and legislative branch members.

[Forbes]

Broadcasters Beasley, Citadel, Entercom, Greater Media, Lincoln Financial Media and Saga Communications have filed a joint filing asking that the FCC consider relaxing ownership restrictions when deciding on the Sirius-XM merger.

"...one essential protection would be the elimination of local radio ownership rules, which would allow AM and FM broadcasters to offer more diverse services to compete with SDARS on the local level."

An interesting concept, and one that's obviously using the satellite radio merger for self-serving interests. The joint filing goes on to suggest a fully interoperable receiver - one that supports terrestrial radio as well as satellite radio - be designed as part of the conditions:

"In addition, the Commission could require, in a manner similar to the television All Receivers Act, or to cable's Must Carry, that all satellite radio receivers be capable of providing SDARS, AM and FM analog, and AM and FM HD broadcast radio signals in order to facilitate more direct competition among service providers."

Now that's actually not a bad idea. Not only would it foster more direct competition, but would also move a lot more product off the shelves. Plus we all know that satellite radio subscribers tend to listen to terrestrial radio more than "regular" listeners, so that's just empowering the consumer. Never a bad thing.

But let's take it a step further...

It's obviously hypocritical for terrestrial radio to oppose the merger while at the same time seeking a relaxation of media ownership regulations. And at the same time, it's hypocritical for satellite radio merger proponents to oppose media ownership regulations (though - it can be argued - that there's already been a relaxation in media ownership rules, which is why we're in this mess to begin with).

But what about localism? There also shouldn't be a restriction on satellite radio from providing local programming. Why does the "government sanctioned monopoly" shoe only fit for satellite radio - when terrestrial radio has been enjoying a monopoly on local broadcasts since the 1930s?

And at the same time, let's apply the same performance fees to artists that satellite radio and internet radio pay. Why does terrestrial radio get a free ride? Do they provide more "promotional value" than satellite or internet? I don't think so.

If they want a level playing field - then let's give it to them.

[Read Joint Filing (PDF) via Yahoo! Message Boards]
Thanks Tony!

C3SR, the so-called "consumer group" which just happens to be supported by the NAB and is housed at one of their lawyer’s offices, may have the funds to produce a JibJab-style video... but I don't.

Luckily, JabJab has a section on their website where you can create one of your own videos. So just for kicks, here goes:

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has formally issued an apology to the FCC for the misrepresentation of two Congressmen as being opponents of the Sirius-XM merger.

Representatives John Conyers, Jr.(D-MI) and Steve Chabot (R-OH) were listed in four separate ex parte filings among parties who were opposed to the satellite radio merger.

In the letter to the FCC, the NAB wrote:

"While both members have raised questions about the merger, it is inaccurate to characterize them as opposed to the merger. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused."

The filings in question cite a similar document that had listed Toyota as being opposed to the Sirius-XM merger, a point that Toyota objected to in a response filing to the FCC. The NAB subsequently removed Toyota from the "growing chorus of widespread, diverse opposition."

Apparently they will need to remove Rep. Conyers and Rep. Chabot as well.

[Read Letter (PDF) via SiriusBuzz]

J. Gregory Sidak and Hal J. Singer have written an anti-satellite radio merger Op-Ed piece for the Washington Times, one that is riddled with rhetoric and hypocrisy.

Entitled "Misunderstanding the XM/Sirius merger," the piece urges conservatives to "reject the idea of taking two unregulated competitors and creating in their place a brand-new regulated monopoly."

The article also criticizes the block-and-rebate plan, that would refund subscribers who choose to opt-out of adult programming. An amazing stance in a world where we are obsessed with violent and adult content in video games and media. But still, Sidak and Singer pull it off:

"...the Family Research Council blessed the merger after XM and Sirius promised to block sexually explicit channels in exchange for a small rebate. Given the sheer popularity of Howard Stern and similar types of edgy content among satellite radio subscribers, this 'phantom rebate' will likely be redeemed by only a handful of subscribers."

I'm sure the Parent Television Council would disagree with you there. It's not about there "sheer number" but the empowering of the consumer. (Newsflash: there are 130 channels other than Howard Stern on Sirius. Yes, shocking, I know.)

The entire article is generally targeted to the politically minded, particularly conservatives, but yet at the same time managed to denounce XM and Sirius' approach to the merger, calling it "a media blitz for a political campaign."

Of course, there's no mention of the NAB and its unrelenting lobbying efforts - which include full-page advertising - to block the merger. If anything can be considered a "media blitz" it would be the NAB's attacks on Sirius and XM. But why would they mention NAB? That doesn't lend towards their agenda. Afterall, Sidak was commissioned by C3SR, which is disclosed at the end of the article, but the C3SR itself is "supported" by the NAB. Mentioning the NAB would just expose the hypocrisy, so Sidak/Singer opt toward referring to them as "merger opponents" instead. Far less incriminating.

There's other issues I have with the article.

Sidak and Singer talk about a "price freeze" being promised by Sirius and XM. But a "freeze" indicates that Sirius-XM have promised to not raise prices for a period of time. This is just factually incorrect. Sirius-XM have made no such promise, though they have said they are open to the idea. Sidak/Singer are twisting the concept of a multi-tiered/a la carte pricing plan as offering "price freezes" - indeed the term "a la carte" is no where to be found in the article (oops, apparently it does) - and they base a large part of their argument of the deal being anti-competitive on a price freeze.

"Of course, if they truly believed this argument, XM and Sirius would not need to offer to freeze their prices. Competition would keep those prices at competitive levels."

And then there's this:

"There is an established framework used by antitrust authorities to analyze mergers, which involves defining the 'relevant market' and assessing the power to raise prices within that market. Under that framework, it is clear that this merger has serious problems, so XM and Sirius have rejected that framework. Instead of offering credible evidence that terrestrial radio (or any other audio service) constrains the price of satellite radio, they have approached the government's merger review proceeding as though it were a media blitz for a political campaign."

Unfortunately, this argument falls flat on its face as well. The DOJ process is completely non-transparent. They actually take measures to make sure that even those being interviewed can't get a read on the DOJ's opinion (i.e., if they think you're pro-merger, they as anti-merger questions, and vice versa).

So how does Sidak and Singer know that Sirius and XM "have rejected that framework"? How do they know what "evidence" Sirius and XM have submitted to prove its part of a larger relevant market? The answer is, they don't These statements are complete assumptions, and the opinion of Sidak and Singer.

Just like it's my own assumption and opinion that Sidak and Singer are full of....

[Washington Times]

There's a YouTube video up called "Farmer Mel" that attacks the Sirius-XM merger, and in a pretty personal matter I might add.

Watch the video below (RSS/Email subscribers may need to click to see the video, trust me, it's worth it).

Now here's the kicker. The video was created by C3SR (or the "Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio") and encourages viewers to visit their website and "let the FCC know that you oppose a satellite radio monopoly." (UPDATE: For what it's worth, they make no secret of this, the end screen shows that C3SR produced it.)

In an effort to garner support (or views), the NAB sent out an email blast sent out to members asking them to watch it:

From: "John David"
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007
Subject: YouTube Video Pokes Fun at Satellite Radio Monopoly

I want to be sure you see this humorous depiction of the proposed XM/Sirius merger-to-monopoly posted to YouTube by the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio. After you have viewed it, I hope you will visit the Web site, www.c3sr.org, and send an email to the Federal Communications Commission opposing this monopoly. XM and Sirius have increased their number of pro-merger comments by tapping into their subscriber base, and those who oppose this merger need to have their voices heard.

Feel free to forward to your friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp8RCneVcrQ

John David
Executive Vice President/Radio
National Association of Broadcasters
1771 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone 202.429.5305 and Fax 202.775.3523
jdavid@nab.org

How nice. Nothing like a little co-marketing to help boost a social media campaign. If you're wondering where a bunch of college students got the budget to create such a video, just remember C3SR is supported by the NAB.

UPDATE: Apparently C3SR doesn't quite enjoy comments to the video that oppose their view. The following comment was just deleted:

fcukradio
What transparent bull5h!t. What it really should say is, "Paid for by Clear Channel and CBS - two companies who now realize what they've done to radio. The consequences of greed are being realized. You've taken all that terrestrial radio had to give and have bankrupted yourselves. There's no more costs to cut, no more talent to bleed and no more viability. Rot in hell.

Guess they don't like that whole "transparency" aspect of social media. Apparently so much so that comments are now turned off on the video (except for pro-NAB comments of course).

No worries, you can still add a comment to the video creator's profile page: jbrady82.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Well that was fast. Comments to the video are turned back on. Bombs away.

The million-member strong Parent Television Council has fired a shot across the bow at the NAB over the "analysis" that a satellite radio a la carte packages would not better serve the consumer. The PTC called the NAB's claims “irrelevant” and called the NAB’s practices “self-serving, anti-competitive practices.”

The PTC recently praised Sirius-XM for their a la carte plans, calling it "groundbreaking" if enacted.

In a statement made to Radio & Records on Thursday, PTC director of corporate and government affairs Dan Isett said, “The National Association of Broadcasters has thrown up a red herring by claiming that prices would rise under an a la carte model for satellite radio. In its January 2007 report about cable television pricing, the FCC debunked the suggestion that prices would rise under an a la carte model.”

Isett added that “despite the NAB’s claims, the per-channel cost of programming is completely irrelevant unless the consumer has the ability to choose that programming on a per-channel basis. The same is true of cable television programming.”

“NAB’s self-serving, anti-competitive practices have now been exposed, and it is unfortunate that the NAB has adopted the cable television industry’s anti-consumer choice talking points,” Isett said.

[Radio & Records]

The NAB has sent a follow-up letter to the FCC after meeting with Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, Rudy Brioché, and Christopher Naoum on Tuesday. The meeting was a follow-up of its own to discuss the NAB's "analysis" of Sirius-XM's A La Carte pricing.

In the letter, they list the US Senators and Representatives who voiced opposition to the merger, as well as other groups/individuals (like C3SR and American Antitrust Institute among others).

And they again depict Toyota as being on their side. They even add the following footnote:

"Even long-time XM partner Toyota expresses concerns that an XM-Sirius merger may harm
audio quality and consumer interests."

Wow. Seeing how Toyota reacted to the first "mischaracterization," I wonder how they'll react to this?

[Read letter (PDF)]
Thanks Tim!

The NAB selectively quoted from Toyota's merger comments in a letter they sent to the FCC, and Toyota apparently is not happy about it, calling it a "mischaracterization" in a letter to the FCC.

Toyota's July 9th filing stated "with a finite bandwidth for both XM and Sirius, it may be difficult for a combined entity to deliver more content while maintaining or even improving audio quality."

The NAB took this to mean that Toyota "expresses doubts whether the merger is a good idea." (The letter in question of course, is the famous "sow's ear" letter.)

But Toyota said no such thing, and never meant to express any such doubts about the merger. An attorney representing wrote in a response to the FCC that "Toyota wishes to clarify any confusion that may result from the NAB’s mischaracterization of our comments."

"Toyota intended to reiterate that satellite radio bandwidth continues to limit audio quality," wrote Toyota's attorney. "This is a concern irrespective of the number of satellite radio providers, and was not intended to suggest that the problem would be worse with a single provider should the merger be approved."

"Toyota’s comment should not be read to suggest that this concern raises any doubts for Toyota as to whether the merger is a good idea."

[Read Letter (PDF) via SiriusBuzz]

It's sad that the New York Post is actually giving any attention to the NAB's "analysis" - and subsequent name-calling - of Sirius-XM's proposed A La Carte pricing.

Then again, Peter Lauria does leave subtle drops about the NAB's "increasingly vitriolic quest" to block the merger, as well as their critique of A La Carte "coincides, somewhat inopportunely," with the words of praise from the FCC Chairman.

And I'm glad he picked up on this bit: "...while Sirius and XM have been open about the equipment upgrades needed for a la carte, the NAB does not mention that terrestrial broadcasting's push into high-definition radio also will require a hardware upgrade."

In other words, "do as I say, not as I do."

[New York Post]