Five organizations representing rural Americans from across the country voiced their support for the merger of Sirius and XM in a joint letter sent to FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein.
The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/LAF and League of Rural Voters (who had previously filed comments with the FCC in support of the merger) were joined by three new groups: National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Intertribal Agriculture Council and Oklahoma Black Historical Research Society Project, Inc.
In their letter to Commissioner Adelstein, who himself is a South Dakota native, the groups list a number of consumer benefits for rural America that would result from a merger of the two companies:
"This merger is clearly in the best interest of rural consumers because it would allow a combined company to expand upon its existing services with increased efficiencies, and at the same time provide rural listeners with more diverse programming and lower pricing.""A merger of Sirius and XM will make satellite radio a more viable option for rural consumers... even in the most remote areas," they added.
It's interesting to see Adelstein being the focus in this letter, being the only other Democrat on the FCC next to Copps. Commissioner Copps has expressed his doubts about the Sirius-XM merger, as well as about media consolidation in general. Adelstein historically has joined Copps in his opposition to media consolidation as well, a point he made very clear in his statements (PDF) regarding the FCC's 2003 review of Broadcast Ownership Rules.
However the rural groups don't ignore this point, concluding their letter with:
"Furthermore, the rapidly increasing homogenization of programming on terrestrial radio is leaving rural listeners at a disadvantage. Terrestrial radio broadcasters once provided rural listeners with a variety of local programming options that were tailored to individual communities. A merger of SIRIUS and XM will make satellite radio a more viable option for rural consumers by drastically increasing programming options, even in the most remote areas."
Read the full letter here (PDF).
little pink houses baby........fooooor you and me!
Satellite radio really is an excellent service for those unfortunately living in rural areas. I live in the sticks, as they say, and we have one (1) shitty local AM station playing the same bullshit pop on a 2 hour loop. It's great to have some variety, and the idea of local content doesn't really apply because there really is no local alternative.
WhoreMonger makes the case against a merger very well. If there's no terrestrial radio alternative, then letting the only two sat rad services merge into one is against the interests of rural consumers. These folks will ultimately lose about 150 channels after they consolidate their operations. Of course this assumes that Mel can be taken at his word that both Sirius and XM will survive and prosper even if they are not allowed to merge.
A merger in my opinion would be a great thing. Then all programming could be offered on both carriers such as NHL, Nascar, Howard Stern, etc... Sure we would loose some channels, but we really don't need a bunch of doubled music channels anyways. 80's are pretty much 80's, Alternative is Alternative, and Country is Country, regardless of who is broadcasting it.
I hate the fact that Sirius is offering Nascar this year and XM is offereing NHL. So this means If I want to have both Nascar and NHL, I have to pay for 2 subscriptions to 2 providers and have 2 satellite radios in my truck. I would rather pay a bit more to get all channels on one radio than pay 2 full subscriptions to 2 different companies for a small variation in programming because one exclusively has "this" and the other has "that".
It may even reduce the monthly subscription prices, as a lot of company resources could be merged.
In ANY case, especially this one, a company's *customers* are far better suited to make decisions about how a company is run than someone else's political official.
Why is it so hard to let the market decide? That means you and your neighbors, you know, and your wallets, not some mysterious "focus group" or "committee".
"Government intervention" does not equal "freedom" anywhere. Can we truly call ourselves "free"?
In ANY case, especially this one, a company's *customers* are far better suited to make decisions about how a company is run than someone else's political official.
Why is it so hard to let the market decide? That means you and your neighbors, you know, and your wallets, not some mysterious "focus group" or "committee".
"Government intervention" does not equal "freedom" anywhere. Can we truly call ourselves "free"?