Noting first that Ed Meese, a previous supporter of the merger, is simply reiterating his position here, this is but one more example of someone taking the broader view of "competition" than DOJ has previously taken.

Interestingly, no legal argument for the position is presented, in spite of Meese's former post. Instead, they rely on what amounts to a personal view of the situation devoid of legal underpinnings. In fact, they almost ignore the dominant position of the DOJ in the process, in favor of the FCC's regulatory status.

Should DOJ approve this merger as many believe they will, they must be prepared to deal with the consequences of expanding the definition of "competition". Are they now prepared to allow the merger of Staples and Office Depot? Are they prepared now prepared to allow the next Whole Foods merger without challenge? Are they willing to, in effect, codify the meaning of "competition" as that of the broader market in which specific products compete?

Interesting that you mention the "next" Whole Foods merger, because the last WF merger (Wild Oats) may well set a precedent that they will tend to define markets in a dramatically wider fashion than they have previously.

Have you heard about the Forrester Research study (commissioned by the NAB and presented at their trade show this week) that lends creedence to the wide-market definition theory?

http://www.hear2.com/2007/09/long-live-the-a.html

The majority of satellite listeners spend their audio listening time (sum total of time spent listening to satrad, terrestrial, podcasts, internet radio, downloaded music on PC, CD, mp3 players, etc.) listening to non-satellite forms, thus implying that those forms are, as far as the majority of satellite's customers are concerned, those various forms are substitutes for satellite radio.

times have changed! along with the reach of the old fixed concept for content broadcast via a transmiter to just a radio

digital content from all broadcasters, is available across all platforms its no longer your fathers radio.

the doj will release comments shortly. which i suspect, will support the ever expanding reach of content.

take a look at what news groups (papers) are doing currently online with radio !

As Stackpointer notes, this is the second time that gattuso/meese have come out in support of the merger. Obviously they must be on a monthly retainer to xm and sirius, and are just earning their keep. No new news here.

>>>>>>>> Interesting that you mention the "next" Whole Foods merger, because the last WF merger (Wild Oats) may well set a precedent that they will tend to define markets in a dramatically wider fashion than they have previously.

AFAIK, FTC has not acquiesced to the decision, so its value as precedent is as yet unknown, and there has been no indication it will deter the government from fighting such mergers in the future.

That said, there are pretty big distinguishing characteristics between WF and XM/SIRI -- in particular, there is no direct substitute for XM/SIRI. You cannot purchase a product, anywhere, that has all of the important attributes of XM/SIRI. So, the government's acquiescence in XM/SIRI would be a far broader precedent than that set in WF (if they do end up accepting defeat on the WF issue).

>>>> thus implying that those forms are, as far as the majority of satellite's customers are concerned, those various forms are substitutes for satellite radio.

This view is fundamentally flawed. It is analogous to saying, "Well, I chose to eat lunch at McDonalds because I wanted a burger, but I chose to eat dinner at a nice restaurant, thus, McDonalds is a substitute for a nice restaurant". When one chooses to listen to an Ipod, it can be for any number of reasons -- I want to listen to entire albums instead of individual tracks, I'm not interested in the news or sports content right now, I want to choose precisely what I listen to -- versus having someone choose for me what I want to hear. Some people (me) have times when they would simply prefer to let XM or SIRI do the work for me -- I don't want to deal with the Ipod for whatever reason.

They are fundamentally different listening experiences. My concern, as an anti-merger type, is that DOJ and the courts may not comprehend just how different they are. In particular, the contrast in listening experience between satellite radio and terrestrial could not be more striking, but XM/SIRI (as well as the NAB) would have the decision makers believe they're the same thing.

One thing is sure -- once the merger is approved, you'll see XM/SIRI trying like hell to differentiate itself from terrestrial radio. This idea that terrestrial is competition will evaporate the INSTANT the merger is approved, and suddenly, we'll be hearing just how different they are. For now, it suits the companies' interests to claim they're just like terrestrial.

Are they now prepared to allow the merger of Staples and Office Depot?

We have Staples, Office Depot, And Office Max with-in 20 miles of the office and mgr buys our supplies at Sams. So isn't that a lot of "COMPETITION" or do you say that Sams isn't "COMPETITION" because they also sell chicken?

Stackcounter,

The fact is that individual terristerial stations seek to 'differentiate' themselves constantly from their terristerial brethern....yet they are essentially the same: a few songs, commercials, annoying DJ's, more of the same songs ever hour, more annoying commercials, more annoying DJ's.
SATRAD just has more songs, no commercials, an occassional DJ (who is rarely annoying), more different songs than you heard the last hour, still no commercials, few if any DJ's...and so it goes.
See, the same...but different. What on Earth is wrong with pointing out the obvious differences and the somewhat similar similarities when you care to for indeed both exists.
The same...but different.

•StackPointer•
"One thing is sure -- once the merger is approved, you'll see XM/SIRI trying like hell to differentiate itself from terrestrial radio..."
-Don't they already do this with ads of 100% commercial free music, uncensored radio, whatever programming they offer that's exclusive to satellite radio? It will always be in competition with terrestrial radio, ipods, internet radio, etc. Post merger will force the company to continue to make these differences interesting to the people who don't want to pay for radio, while making sure they keep their words on better services with XM/Sirius for merging in the first place. I'm still confident in XM/Sirius keeping their words to subscribers.

At this point in time, I'm more frustrated that all this is still going on. I understand the defining competition, making sure the customers are being looked out for, and existing law stuff...but I've not really heard too much to sway those arguements to the point of not allowing the merger.

>>>> We have Staples, Office Depot, And Office Max with-in 20 miles of the office and mgr buys our supplies at Sams.

Yet, FTC was successful in preventing a merger of Staples and Office Depot. Why? Because they are a different experience from shopping at Sams. The "Shopping Experience", in effect, was considered as part of the product differentiation-- much as purchasing music for and IPod (or on CD) is a different experience from having XM or Sirius play it for you without the cost and hassle of purchasing it.

>>>>> SATRAD just has more songs, no commercials, an occassional DJ (who is rarely annoying), more different songs than you heard the last hour, still no commercials, few if any DJ's...and so it goes.

>>>>> See, the same...but different.

Yes, there are similarities between sat radio and terrestrial -- they both broadcast stuff over the airwaves. But that's where the similarities end -- and the differences are much greater than are the similarities (at a time when everyone is downplaying the transmission medium as distinguishing, it is odd that this would be the only real similarity, but even that isn't THAT similar).

Much bigger differences?

- Ad-supported versus subscription
- Localized availability of channels vs. national availability
- Broader array of content due to subscription model
- Broader array of content due to having a national footprint
- sat radio pays for music content, terrestrial doesn't
- terrestrial incapable of offering some content due to cost

The list could go on for a while. The point is there are many more differences, and much more substantive differences, than there are similarities.

Like JckMyrhffr, I'll be glad when it is over.

This is by far one of the more intelligent and rational discussion of the merger I've yet to see.

All good points.

You may want to throw DirecTV and Dish into the mix. What sort of precedent would merge approval set for these two companies given their failed attempt a few years ago?