Just in case the Federal Communications Commission wasn't already aware of it, the Sirius-XM camp has filed an ex parte filing highlighting the NAB's dubious tactics for garnering "support" for their cause.

The counsel for Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. says little else in the filing beyond simply linking to the Washington Post article, but that's really more than enough for them to do. It's better to put the issue on record and let it speak for itself.

It still boggles me that the NAB needed to resort to these "inspirational" tactics so as to generate 8,500 form-letters, when they advocate on behalf of 8,300+ radio/TV stations and networks.

John Gorman said it perfectly in a recent blogpost:

"Is this how your NAB members want their money spent? Is this the image the radio industry wants or needs right about now?"

I would wager to say the answer is a resounding "no" and the NAB will have a lot of explaining to do once this is all over.

[Ex Parte filing (PDF) via SiriusBuzz]

Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) wrote a piece that ran in both the Washington Times (yesterday) and a similar piece that ran in BusinessWeek (a week or so ago).

In both, Boucher dismisses antitrust concerns by building a case as to why satellite radio is part of a greater "audio entertainment" market, and argues that the Sirius-XM merger would benefit listeners.

"At first blush, one might conclude that a combination of the only two providers of this satellite-based service would be an obvious antitrust abridgement. In fact, the 'bumper sticker-like' campaign of merger opponents stresses the harm of a 2-to-1 combination.

The reality of the relevant market, however, is both more subtle and more compelling."

I think that's the basis of this entire argument. Whether you consider satellite radio to be within its own silo, or whether you feel that satellite radio directly competes with other audio mediums.

Rep. Boucher addresses this debate in his piece, talking about his view of the competitive landscape:

"[Regulators] often ask, 'How far would a person have to drive in order to find a substitute?' In the case of XM and Sirius, consumers don't have to drive anywhere to find a competitive alternative: They just have to hit a different button on their car stereo."

It's that ease of switching between audio mediums that, in my opinion, is the biggest case for the merger. And ultimately, it's what protects the consumer from a combined company abusing "monopolistic" powers.

Aside from the argument about whether or not a merger would create a monopoly (which has been discussed here ad nauseum), I think it's great to see Sirius-XM getting this level of public political support. The NAB is quick to point out that they got X number of Congressmen to sign a document, but there's little in public support coming from those in Capitol Hill for their cause.

[BusinessWeek, Washington Times]

Yesterday, the Thanksgiving Day post lightly touched upon what the Washington Post uncovered recently: that many of the "comments" submitted to the fcc against the Sirius-XM merger were simply generated through a dubious pop-up ad campaign.

This issue goes far beyond the use of form letters. I'm no lawyer, but this appears to border on all out fraud.

Form letters can be a "useful" tool for large groups to assemble their thoughts en masse. I don't necessarily like them (I would much prefer the public submit in their own words), but at least the submitter is voicing their opinion and is aware of it.

But what the NAB has done here is not at all a case of "form letters."

The Washington Post discovered that out of the 60 people they contacted - many of the phones were actually disconnected, or went unanswered. Out of the 10 people they were actually able to talk to (which - in itself - is a ridiculous rate of failure), only 1 person - ONE PERSON - even remembered filling out something remotely related to satellite radio (and not even being merger related).

So how did those comments get submitted to the FCC?

According to the Washington Post article, the NAB bought pop-up ads on websites like CarMax.com, Staples.com and PriceGrabber.com in August and September. The ad ran the headline, "The XM Radio/Sirius Merger will create higher prices. Stop the Monopoly!" - and users could click either, "Yes, I'd like to help stop the monopoly" or "No, thank you."

Those who clicked "yes" were asked to type in their contact information and later received a confirmation e-mail "detailing their action and providing a copy of the letter to be sent to the FCC," according an NAB spokesperson. Respondents were given the "opportunity to opt out of the process" and cancel submission of their letter.

If I'm reading that correctly... it means that any inaction to the email was considered confirmation. So if these emails were sent to the Spam folder, or were inadvertently deleted, the submission was still considered confirmed.

And there's another question...

So far only a little over 5,000 computer generated emails have hit the FCC and, as the article points out, many with the names and addresses of people who said they never filed any comments regarding the merger. But the NAB states in the article that 8,500 comments were "inspired" by this campaign.

That means some 3,500 more "comments" with dubious provenance are waiting to appear. Where are they? When will they show up? Why have they been withheld?

I don't care if you're pro- or anti-merger. If you have an opinion on the merger - whatever it may be - you should have submitted your comments to the FCC. That is your right as a citizen, and it's the whole purpose as to why the FCC has a public comment submission process.

These phony letters corrupt this entire process and are in sharp contrast to the thousands of Americans who took time to write genuine, thoughtful letters to the FCC.

The fact that the NAB - which advocates on behalf of over 8,300 radio and television stations and networks, and has an annual NAB Radio Show which reportedly is attended by over 110,000 industry professionals - simply cannot garner enough genuine public support for their agenda is telling. Very very telling.

But just because the public isn't agreeing with a lobbyist's position doesn't mean they should resort to these tactics. It is the public who should decide how to voice their opinion, not a special interest group.

A Call To Action:

The more I think about this, the more angry I get. Again, we're not talking about form letters (which, sadly, is a standard lobbying practice) - I'm talking about people participating as part of a legal process without knowing they are. In the Washington Post article, it was pointed out that a poll of 350 congressional staffers conducted by the Congressional Management Institute in 2005 indicated that half of them did not believe that form-letter messages were sent with the knowledge or approval of constituents.

How long has this been going on? How many other comments from "the public" aren't genuine? How exactly are all these comments being extracted, especially considering WaPo's astonishing rate of failure in contacting submitters? Are these in fact even real people?

We need to ask Congress and the FCC for an inquiry. There needs to be some accountability here.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose the merger, we need to know the extent of these practices. How exactly were these comments were "inspired" by the NAB? If you feel the same way as I do, then please voice your opinion and contact Congress/FCC to demand an inquiry.

There's several ways to do this (like, contacting the FCC directly or check out the EFF's guidelines for contacting Congress). XM and Sirius also have handy-dandy pages that submit your comment to the FCC and copy your state's representatives (here's XM's version, or Sirius' version - they both do the same thing).

However you do it, just remember this issue is not about the merger itself, rather an inquiry into these deceitful and dubious tactics. Those of us who's actually spent the time to submit a unique and thoughtful comment shouldn't be undermined by a pop-up ad.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
...and in between naps after gorging yourself with food today - check out this Washington Post article about the form letters reportedly generated by the NAB and subsequently submitted to the FCC.

The Washington Post has contacted several of the people - who's names are now on record as supporting the NAB's political agenda - and many of them had no idea that they would be submitting comments to the FCC.

"No sir, I never sent any notes to Washington," said William Chadwick, a retired truck driver from Lebanon Junction, Ky., whose name is attached to one of the messages that reached the FCC. "This call is the first time I've heard of this."

"I never sent an e-mail," said Frank Dashields, a Salisbury, Md., building-services manager. "I don't even know about the issue."

"I don't know what the merger is about and I don't care," said Tom Biniecki, a retired steel worker from Winamac, Ind. "I have no idea what you're talking about."

Apparently the form emails (which you can read more about here) were sent to the Commission after people clicked on an ad that read, "The XM Radio/Sirius Merger will create higher prices. Stop the Monopoly!" The ad invited users to choose either, "Yes, I'd like to help stop the monopoly" or "No, thank you."

It's an incredible article, and one that speaks volumes of the NAB's tactics. Well worth the read.

[The Washington Post]
Thanks to everyone who sent this in!

Earlier today an anonymous reader sent me the following email from David Rehr sent out to NAB members. It's interesting to read only because it shows how the NAB seems to now have a heightened sense of importance when it comes to the battle over performance royalties.

When it comes to picking and choosing battles, it baffled me that the NAB focused so much on the XM-Sirius merger (or satellite radio in general over the past 13 years), when there's just far more pressing issues for them to devote resources towards. This email illustrates that perfectly...

Read the email after the jump....

The National Association of Broadcasters and musicFIRST continue to battle over performance fees for terrestrial radio broadcasts. In the latest volley, musicFIRST has sent a "gift" to NAB president David Rehr.

See, the NAB has been consistently calling the performance right a "tax" - a designation that has been called into question by even lawmakers.

So musicFIRST sent the Rehr a copy of the American Heritage College Dictionary, “to help the NAB more accurately understand the meaning of a tax.”

Even Senator John Sununu (R-NH), at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Future of Radio, asked NAB Radio Board member W. Russell Withers why he referred to performance fees as a "tax" when the word implies that the government would be collecting the money.

Perhaps the dictionary will help answer that.

"A performance right is not a tax," said Martha Reeves, a founding member of musicFIRST. "It is fair compensation for artists and musicians who, through their voices, their inspiration, and their hearts and souls, bring music to life on the radio. It is compensation earned by artists and musicians that is long overdue."

"It seems that the NAB will do anything to avoid paying artists," added John Simson, Executive Director of SoundExchange and also a member of musicFIRST. "They tried calling royalties a 'tax' years ago when they moved heaven and earth to avoid paying songwriters, but they lost that one."

NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton fired back by completely avoiding the issue and instead said that the recording industry is trying to "bail out a failing business model."

"It is undeniable that free airplay of music on America's hometown radio stations generates millions of dollars in annual revenue for both artists and the foreign-owned record labels," Wharton added.

Undeniable? Tell that to Bruce Springsteen, who's album "Magic" debuted at No. 1 on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart and sold about 335,000 copies in its first week - despite very little radio airplay. According to Fox News, Springsteen's album was snubbed by radio giant and NAB member Clear Channel, which reportedly sent out an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic."

Undeniable indeed. Maybe we need to send another dictionary to Mr. Wharton.

[FMQB]