The NAB has filed a Reply to Opposition (PDF) with the FCC disputing Sirius-XM's proposed A La Carte packages.

But the notable part doesn't lie in the filing itself, rather in the fact that comments posted to Orbitcast are actually quoted in the filing. So before we continue, let's give a full round of applause for Joe, Flap Jackson, PFreak, JohnG, and Mr. FancyPants.

I think it's a testament to the strong community here, and the encouraged open format for accepting opposing views. That we'd ever see the ridiculous medley of screennames actually being cited in an FCC filing is deserving as well.

Satellite Radio TechWorld puts it perfectly, the NAB has just "immortalized" the commenters here with this filing. It's proof positive that they read, not only what I'm writing, but what you are writing.

And that's the most important of all.

[Satellite Radio TechWorld] 

The FCC has no intentions of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, said FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. And he cited satellite radio as one of the reasons.

The Fairness Doctrine was first instituted in the late '40s, but was finally put to sleep in 1987 when it was determined the doctrine was not in the public interest.

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) and other Republicans in both the House and Senate countered by introducing legislation to bar the FCC from reinstating the rule.

But Martin effectively squashed the issue in a letter to Pence that was made public today. The FCC Chairman said that the Commission has no intensions of revisiting the doctrine, and that government regulation wasn't needed to ensure public access to a wide range of opinion.

"Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened even further since 1987," wrote Martin.

And THAT is pretty cool to see.

[Breitbart]
Thanks espnjason!

NAB President and CEO David Rehr is once again writing a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin about the Sirius-XM merger. This time he's pulling out the old "sow's ear" adage to prove his point.

"...Sirius and XM announced a series of pledges designed to dress up the proposed merger-to-monopoly as a benefit to the public. But you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear," Rehr wrote.

Undoubtedly this is language that will sway Martin in the NAB's favor. If that doesn't cut it, then the remaining scathing 5-page letter regurgitating the same old argument should do the trick. The harder the NAB tries to claim that satellite radio doesn't compete with terrestrial, the more it appears that they in fact do. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush don't you think Mr. Rehr?

Now, I don't see calling the first-ever A La Carte offering a "shameless attempt to curry the favor of government regulators," as rubbing Kevin Martin the right way. Martin, afterall, has had A La Carte pricing on his agenda from the very beginning - and this could set precedence for the rest of the media industry. Don't burn your bridges Mr. Rehr, because you can't get blood out of a turnip.

On a personal note, a part of the letter that I truly enjoyed was when David Rehr brought up the "nattering voices of self-interested Wall Street analysts and online bloggers."

Come on Mr. Rehr, was that necessary? I'm hurt! Afterall, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I can tell you from self-interested experience, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade! Don't worry, your comments are like water off a duck's back.

[Read the full letter (PDF)] 

BREAKING: Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) and XM Satellite Radio (XMSR) have jointly filed their reply comments with the FCC.

The "Joint Opposition to Petitions to Deny and Reply Comments" is in total a 112-page document that includes more details on XM's and Sirius' A La Carte pricing plan, disputes the NAB's arguments against a combined satellite radio company, and argues Sirius-XM's case as to why the merger would be in the public interest.

This post will be updated as I read through the document. You can of course read it yourself here (PDF). UPDATE: Don't forget to read Appendices A (PDF) and B-H (PDF), some good stuff in there too.

There's an interesting article in Seeking Alpha today by M&A Researcher about the new pleading cycle involving the 1997 SDARS rule. But what really struck me was the comparison between the sheer number of FCC comments, versus the "weight" of other comments.

"The vast majority of analysts (professional and amateur) continually fail to accurately weigh the comments in terms of significance, instead falling into the trap of literally counting the supporter/opponent filings as if the FCC will do the same. While the FCC is surely aware of the tally, it is certainly much more interested in the nature of the comments, and more importantly, from whom the comments originate. It can not be stressed enough, even at this early stage, that the opponents involved so far have far more clout within the D.C. beltway than do the supporters. This too is subject to change in the coming months."

If you look at the FCC Comment Scorecard (courtesy of SiriusBuzz), you'll see how the "pro" comments are definitely outweighing the "anti" comments.

The point that M&A Researcher is trying to make (though they seem rather proud about it) is that the influence of the anti-merger camp outweighs the number of pro-merger comments.

Which, sadly, all goes back to politics. It's disgusting to think that pressure from politicians (who are only looking out for their constituents campaign contributors) would outweigh the opinion of the majority. But hey, it's all in the name of the "public interest" isn't it?

[Seeking Alpha] 

The NAB yesterday asked the FCC to move forward in releasing information related to XM and Sirius's violations of FCC rules involving their FM modulators and terrestrial repeaters.

"The information at issue here is inextricably linked to the pending application of XM and Sirius to merge," that NAB said in yesterday's 8-page filing (PDF).

Earlier this year, the NAB filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC seeking information related to the satellite radio companies' various rules violations.

"XM and Sirius may operate above the Earth, but they are not above the law. Their continued reluctance to fully disclose key facts related to past violations is yet another example of why these two companies should not be trusted with monopoly power," said Dennis Wharton of the NAB.

What is funny in this debacle is that the information isn't "secret" to the FCC. And the FM modulator and repeater tower issue garnered significant media coverage, so the only organization who benefits from this "unveiling" is the NAB. And the reason? As stated in an earlier letter to the FCC, the NAB wants to evaluate Sirius and XM's "character qualifications."

Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Steven LaTourette (R-OH) have written to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bennett, regarding the proposed XM/Sirius merger.

Stupak and LaTourette asked that both organizations deny the proposed satellite radio merger.

The letter seems to repeat the NAB's mantra, referring back to the original 1997 SDARS license that stated that there must be at least two satellite radio providers. The FCC is currently seeking public comment regarding this exact language in the license.

The Congressmen also say that XM and Sirius are different from terrestrial radio and iPods.

"There is currently no existing audio service or product that qualifies as a viable substitute for satellite radio that could constrain the behavior of an XM-Sirius monopoly," Stupak and LaTourette wrote.

Stupak and LaTourette concluded by asking that the DOJ and FCC "preserve national radio competition, and safeguard the interests of American consumers by denying this merger."

This opposition comes on the heals of a separate letter, signed by 72 members of the House, asking to have the merger denied.

[Read full letter (PDF) via FMQB] 

In late June, the Federal Communications Commission invited public comments on whether the 1997 SDARS license prohibited a merger between Sirius and XM.

The specific aspect that is in question is whether on whether the language in the license that prohibited the transfer of control of one satellite radio licensee to the other, actually constitutes a binding Commission rule. The FCC is seeking comment on whether they should waive, modify or repeal the transfer prohibition. In their Notice (PDF), the FCC said that the comments, and reply comments, would begin in 30 and 45 days respectively.

Well, that clock has begun.

Comments must be filed on or before August 13, 2007, and reply comments must be filed on or
before August 27, 2007. Use the same Docket Number as before (07-57).

[Read Public Notice (PDF)] 

Primosphere was one of the four companies who bid for the SDARS licenses back in the late-90s, and as you can tell, they lost.

Now, as a result of the pending Sirius-XM merger, they want back in.

In 1996, Primosphere Limited Partnership bid $68 million for a SDARS license, stating that they intended on restoring music genres no longer available in major radio markets. The service would have essentially been ad-supported satellite radio. But they lost, and in 1997 the FCC officially dismissed their application.

But Primosphere didn't give up. They filed a series of petitions between the time their application was dismissed, all the way into 2004 when Primosphere submitted a motion to withdraw the Application for Review.

But the FCC never acted on the motion to withdraw. And in February, right after the Sirius-XM merger was announced, Primosphere decided to withdraw its withdrawal. (Yes, you read that right.)

The reason?

Because the FCC stated that they would "re-auction the [SDARS] license among the other existing applicants" should one of the licenses be otherwise denied. And if Primosphere is still one of the existing applicants, then they are still in the running.

So Primosphere requested that if the Sirius-XM merger is approved, that the other half of the S-band spectrum available to be given to Primosphere.

Primosphere has said they will construct and launch their own satellites (they've in fact already paid the launch fees for the other two satellites they originally proposed), and expect they can be up and running with their own service within 5 years.

"A better way to avoid the anticompetitive effects of the proposed XM/Sirius merger would be to have a new competitor in the SDARS who could begin operating immediately," Primosphere wrote in a FCC filing (PDF).

Fast forward to July 3rd, and Primosphere is now asking the FCC (PDF) to consolidate the Sirius-XM merger application, with its application to launch and operate a satellite radio service.

This is getting really interesting.

[via Satellite Radio TechWorld] 

The FCC has placed documents that may contain proprietary or confidential documents submitted relating to the Sirius-XM merger under a Protective Order.

This provides any company, or "Submitting Party," that submits info under the 07-57 docket adequate protection. That way any sensitive materials, like oh say financial disclosures and the such, will not fall into the eager hands of evil doers.

Just stamp it with "Stamped Confidential Document" and that should prevent it from the public view.

[Read the Protective Order (PDF)]
Thanks Tim!