FCC invites comments for anti-merger rule
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Tags:
The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, which invites comments about whether the "rule" that prohibits XM and Sirius from merging should be waived, modified, or repealed.
In the Commission's 1997 Order, there is language that specifically prohibits one SDARS license holder from owning the other. Sirius and XM have said that the prohibition is a policy statement - and not an actual rule - because it was not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Notice of Proposed Rule Making opens this issue up for debate. Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with reply comments due 45 days after.
In a joint statement, Sirius and XM said:
"The companies are pleased that the FCC has outlined the full process for reviewing the SIRIUS-XM merger. This action puts all of the FCC decisions regarding approval of the merger on track. We remain confident that the merger is in the public interest, and continue to look forward to completing the regulatory approvals by year end."
Read the full Notice of Proposed Rule Making (PDF).
Featured Entries
Search Orbitcast:
Latest Poll
Sponsored Links
Comments
would like to hear what Ryan or anyone thinks about this proposed comment period. Is the fact that the FCC are asking for comments on the "rule" a indication that they consider it an official rule that they have set policy on or as Sirus puts it "a policy statement"?
Posted by: Doug salzman | June 27, 2007 10:17 PM
and I quote from the FCC: "(FCC) seeks comment on whether the language in question constitutes a binding Commission rule and, if so, whetherthe Commission should waive, modify, or repeal the prohibition in the event that the Commission determines that the proposed merger, on balance, would serve the public interest."
They are asking 3 questions: 1) the original question "Should we allow the merger". Now they are aaking 2) Do you think what we said is a rule? and 3) If yes, should we allow it anyway?
It sounds like a persons internal thought process but up for debate BUT there are some legal questions that it answers which are good. If they "publically" answer the second question, "No those were not rules" then it cuts off the arguement that NAB would use in a subsequent lawsuit to stop the merger. If they say, "Yes to the 1 and 2 question then it allows them an out to deny the merger anyway by saying "rules are rules and we have rules for a reason." which is what your mother would say about going to see Kiss in concert when you were 16 and wouldn't shut up about it.
I personnally hope it is to shut the NAB up and keep them from whinning about loosing but it is more likely them (NAB) lobbying them to answer the question giving the NAB a second chance to derail the merger, since they are loosing the battle on the original question.
Posted by: cyclopsebunny ? | June 28, 2007 12:03 AM