FCC Commissioner expresses doubt on Sirius-XM merger
Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Tags: 2, XM
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps expressed skepticism today about whether he would endorse the proposed merger of Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.
Copps, one of two Democrats on the FCC, said it would be a "steep climb" for him to cast a favorable vote because he has serious concerns about media consolidation. Copps had previously referred to the proposed Sirius-XM merger as a "steep climb" as well back in mid-April.
"Somebody's going to have to make a pretty powerful and potent demonstration that it serves the public interest," Copps said of the XM-Sirius deal.
"The parts of the (public) record that I've looked at so far have not shown me that (the deal) serves the public interest," Copps told reporters at a briefing.
Copps declined to comment on how he will vote, but said he had "very serious worries" about media consolidation in general. "I think localism, competition, diversity (in the media) have been seriously threatened." The Commissioner has historically had problems with the overall state of consolidation in U.S. media, and has expressed this vocally in the past.
[Reuters]
Featured Entries
Search Orbitcast:
Latest Poll
Sponsored Links
Comments
Looks like the merger is off. Maybe now we can get back to the satrad business and Mel can fuck off.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | September 27, 2007 4:51 PM
In reference to the previous comment -
3 Republicans on the FCC. 2 Democrats. Anybody who has been following media mergers is not in the least bit surprised at Democrat FCC commissioner Copps' remark. I would be surprised if he was for any media merger.
Posted by: MUSCLE13 | September 27, 2007 5:32 PM
What? Can't believe none of the jackoffs on this board haven't accused Copps of being bought by the NAB. C'mon folks, you're going soft.
Posted by: chico | September 27, 2007 5:54 PM
Copps remarks are nothing new. He has written articles opposing media consolidation. This is nothing the street doesn't know.
However, media, has become much more of a fragmented industry as a result of new technologies coming to the market. There are plenty of exampls out there, and more likely to come out in the months ahead.
Siriue and XM are both only a very small fraction of the overall market. It would deffinately not be unrealistic to see a lot more media consolidation in the next few years.
Consolidation is coming from all sides of the SIRI/XM merger, just look at CCU and private equity...
Posted by: Zach | September 27, 2007 6:12 PM
"Localism" is the biggest crock of crap of an objection. It doesn't even mean anything. And "competition?" What, with Rush Limbaugh and 20 like minded clones on over 600 stations? Give me a break. The terrestrial airwaves are thick with garbage, geared to the lowest common denominator. This guy is a hack.
Posted by: Max | September 27, 2007 6:54 PM
You call him a hack when he essentially said what you've just said: consolidation in terrestrial radio has led to reduced competition. Seems like more than enough justification to question consolidation in satellite radio, no?
Posted by: Bob | September 27, 2007 7:30 PM
COPPS is not fking around, he means business. That's 1 vote out of 5. Could be 4-against him. Everyone will vote, but think logically, the merger will happen. Why come out a few days before October 1st? October 1st is Monday, there's a good chance the merger announcement is on Monday OCTOBER 1.
There's no other reason to come out with any kind of opinion right now, September 27.
I SAY 4-1 VOTE ON MERGER TO GO. 1 BEING COPPS
Posted by: dan | September 27, 2007 10:09 PM
Sounds good to me. Now i can get back to the sat, radio. I know and love!
Posted by: STARTSOMETHING | September 27, 2007 11:16 PM
Bob: You call him a hack when he essentially said what you've just said: consolidation in terrestrial radio has led to reduced competition. >>
You missed the point since Limbaugh could be picked up by any station no matter who it is owned by. But aside from that, competition in what? Let's suppose every station in America was independently owned. What do you think that does for content? How would that, by itself, improve the medium, or the public's enjoyment of it? In fact, I could argue that fragmentation of media outlets has made content worse- too many people trying their hardest to be crude or outrageous just to get attention for themselves. Look at your cable TV or drive time radio- plenty of choice, a lot of repetition, but little of quality. These buzzwords from the NAB and their cheerleaders have nothing to do with the merit of the merger.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | September 28, 2007 12:43 PM