Dave Van Dyke, president of Bridge Ratings, yesterday wrote a fascinating entry in a recent blog post about the Sirius-XM merger and his personal take on its chances.

In it, he discusses how Bridge's research shows that sentiment for the merger has leaned more towards the positive side for current subscribers - but that non-subscribers still don't like it. This shows that Sirius/XM have done a good job of marketing the merger - internally. But that's hardly the interesting stuff in Van Dyke's post.

The meat and potatoes comes further into it, when he points that the NAB has essentially proven Sirius-XM's point about whether terrestrial and satellite radio compete.

"In the case of the NAB and Mr. Rehr in particular, he doth protest too much."

"...Mr. Rehr has firmly crystallized Mr. Karmazin's point that a merged satellite company is not a monopoly..."

Youch!

It's no secret that David Rehr has reluctantly become the champion for the Sirius-XM merger, but to hear it from someone within the radio industry? That's impressive. This isn't coming from a nattering blogger waving the Sirius-XM pom-poms (or even rogue bloggers who are trying to wake up the radio industry). This is coming from the head of a research firm that terrestrial closely follows.

"Was the approval of this merger terrestrial radio's to lose? I think so. The strategy was wrong. The NAB made the case for the other side."

The problem for Rehr and crew is that Dave Van Dyke is completely correct. But they've embarked down a path that is impossible to back out of. The damage is done. The NAB has no choice but to continue fighting as hard as they can (though they really do have bigger fish to fry). And the more they fight, the more they prove the opposing side's point.

[Navigate the Future]