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!

The Washington Post's Marc Fisher has spoken out in opposition to the Sirius-XM merger in a recent article in the "Style" section of the publication.

It's actually a very well formulated argument, and while this may surprise some folks, I'm not going to pick it apart simply because I'm in favor of the merger. I actually would like everyone to take the time to read it - regardless of what side of the fence you're on - because he has some decent points in there. If you're pro-merger, or anti-merger, truly thinking about all sides of the issue can prove to be beneficial.

First, Fisher points to media consolidation as an example as to why the merger wouldn't be in the public interest.

The past decade has provided convincing evidence that corporate consolidation in radio and other media leads to dramatic cost-cutting, which results in less local programming and lower quality.

Why wouldn't the same happen in satellite radio?

This is probably the biggest and best argument against the merger. If media consolidation has proven to be "bad" in the past, then why should we think it wouldn't continue this trend? Now, I'm promising not to pick this apart, but it's my opinion that free radio and subscription radio are two entirely different beasts, and so there really isn't any precedence to settle upon. And I'll leave it at that.

Another issue that Fisher raises is that the A La Carte pricing would actually end up being a bad thing for satellite radio. He points to the cable industry's own argument that the less popular channels are being subsidized by the subscription fee. As such, all the less popular channels would disappear.

But the example is again flawed because the A La Carte packages still are from a selection of 50 or 100 channels, not on a channel-by-channel basis. So it's not the popular channels that are paying off, it's the $6.99 or $14.99 subscription packages that subsidize all the channels. And the increased choices will undoubtedly lead to an increase in subscribers.

So as a result... oh wait, I wasn't going to argue against this article. Sorry, couldn't resist. Do you agree or disagree with Marc Fisher's points? Give a holler in the comments.

[Washington Post via Bearing Drift Ohio]

UPDATE: I incorrectly labeled Fisher's article as being an "editorial" which was incorrect. It's part of Marc Fisher’s column which runs in the Washington Post's "Style" section. Just want to make sure that's clear.