Clear Channel (CCU), by far one of the largest radio broadcasters in the country, has sent FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate several follow up responses from her meeting with the TAB.
According to the ex parte communication, Commissioner Tate questioned how Clear Channel can recognize and cite competition from other audio sources (iPods, Internet Radio, etc) as a reason for relaxing consolidation rules - while at the same time call the Sirius-XM merger a monopoly.
Conveniently, Clear Channel Vice President Thomas English gives three separate answers to this question. Here's a quick summary of his positions:
- A combined Sirius-XM would "distort" the marketplace because it would concentrate the spectrum, while local radio ownership rules would unfairly restrict terrestrial.
- How could free radio survive? Sirius-XM would have 100% spectrum, and local broadcasters can't compete against that.
- Free radio serves the public interest, and he opposes anything that would affect that regardless of how the market is defined.
It's funny to see Clear Channel actually positioning itself as "the little guy" in this endeavor, promoting "local radio" or claiming that free radio would have "trouble" surviving. Truly amusing. Especially on the heals of Clear Channel partnering with Google for ad distribution across 675 of its radio stations, and the industry as a whole pulls in over $20 billion (that's with a "b") a year.
Commissioner Tate has traditionally promoted less regulation in the evolving communications marketplace.
Testifying in February to the Senate Commerce Committee, Tate said, "XM and Sirius have signed up millions of satellite radio subscribers, and iPods and other digital music players are used by millions more, including one in five people under the age of 30; and our mobile phones now provide us with stock quotes and e-mail updates from sources across the globe. We must make sure that we account for these effects of the digital age, because, from a regulatory standpoint, the media marketplace of tomorrow is being shaped by our actions today."
[FCC Filing (PDF) via Public Integrity]
SIRI and XM have their assigned part of spectrum now, there would be no change in spectrum frequency assignment (no mo0re and no less).
Comments like these make me pro-merger...
Clear Channel and the rest of terrestrial radio are worried that they may actually have to offer a compelling product. Honestly, what this merger is really about is terrestrial radio losing its monopoly.
Is it just me or is Clear Channel actually helping the merger by essentially saying that Satellite Radio and Terrestrial Radio compete with one another ?
The actions of the NAB are simply pathetic. Practically every word this organization utters is contradicting the word before. They claim XM/Sirius want a government sanctioned bailout due to a failed business model, and then lobby congress for deregulation of the ownership rules and passing of legislation to keep XM/Sirius from providing local content.
The NAB claims that satellite radio competes with terrestrial radio but terrestrial radio doesn't compete with satellite radio on a national level. They seem to have an answer for everything.
If they don't compete, why are they spend their own money placing ads in newspapers and in radio spots? Public interest? Are they true humanitarians? I don't see Apple putting out statements. I don't see the National Association of Realtors lobbying congress. I don't see the Microsoft crying monopoly.
It seems every time I see the term "public interest" mentioned in a statement by the NAB, it is always immediately followed by a subtle mention of "local advertisers". It seems THAT is the real issue. The NAB is not concerned about you or me. They are worried about losing local advertisers that are beginning to utilize platforms that have a greater reach.
Here's one of many examples of written statements by the NAB made to the FCC stating they compete not only with satellite radio, but other mediums as well.
"Broadcasters today face intense, and expanding, competition from cable operators, satellite video providers, video sales and rentals, video games, digital video recorders, satellite radio services, and the Internet. The marketplace incentives created by this competition invariably force broadcasters to diligently serve the needs and interests of their local communities just to maintain their existing audience, as well as develop innovate new services that may expand their audience."
COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
In the Matter of
MB Docket No. 04-233
Broadcast Localism
November 1, 2004
They MIGHT have a little more ground to stand on if Clear Channel didn't gobble up as many small local broadcast companies they possibly could once Bush deregulated the amount of licenses one particular broadcast company could have in a market. Talk about handouts.
Most of these "potentially struggling broadcasters" ARE Clear Channel.
Does Clear Channel forget that it owns a stake in XM? If they dislike this merger so much why don't they pull out? Too much money to be made off their channels?
This is almost like Wal-Mart opposing a hypothetical Amazon-eBay merger saying mom and pop stores would be hurt.
I think Clear Channel has its eyes on XM for itself.
And every time someone switches from terrestrial to satellite radio, the NAB kills a baby.
James: That's the best comparison I've heard yet.
all opposed to the merger could have put up a better fight by simply not speaking. Every AD, Statement, and stupid argument they put up just shows how sneaky and stupid they really are. The merger is going through no doubts in my mind.
I wonder(ed) which side of the merger C.C. came down on.. And still can't tell.. On the one hand a merger would put their XM programming in more radios and hence more satrad ad money coming in.. On the other this company is known for cut throat, shaddy dealings.. Where ever the money is the most is where you'll see C.C.