The NAB has been curiously quiet as of late. First they take down the XM-Sirius banner, then a pro-merger piece in Roll Call goes unchallenged... an interesting change in direction considering the vehement opposition we've seen throughout the year (or the past 17 years depending on how you look at it).
Last week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin expressed his desire to relax media consolidation rules, something that the NAB would very much want. Martin even wants to expedite the agency's review, hoping to conclude the proceeding in November and schedule a vote on December 18th.
Then yesterday, the NAB filed comments with the FCC over a series of research studies regarding media ownership for the Commission's pending quadrennial broadcast ownership review. Unsurprisingly, they urged the FCC to reform media ownership rules, stating that doing so would serve the public interest in light of competition.
"This continuing proliferation of outlets and rapid pace of technological change in the media marketplace further underscores the need for Commission action to update its ownership rules," the NAB wrote in the filing. "Only competitively viable broadcast stations sustained by adequate advertising revenues can serve the public interest effectively and provide a significant local presence." (emphasis added)
The argument that the NAB is using here is nearly identical to the argument that justifies the merger of Sirius Satellite Radio Inc with XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. If in fact the fragmentation of media, and the increasing technological choices that enable further fragmentation, were a reason for relaxed media consolidation rules - then the same rules would apply for a merger of Sirius and XM. And vice versa.
But time is running out... and fast.
Martin wants to fast-track the media consolidation decision, a point that has brought on the ire of big names like Barack Obama not to mention the bi-partisan opposition of Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS).
The NAB doesn't need any further opposition, nor do they need the sword of "hypocrite" hanging over their heads during this important juncture. Time is running out, and battles must be chosen. If David Rehr has to pick one to lose, it might as well be to cede to the Sirius-XM merger in order to gain in relaxed media consolidation rules (which do you think its members want more?). A satellite radio merger, in the grand scheme of things, really has little effect on terrestrial radio considering that only 4.1% of total listenership is attributed to Sirius or XM. While relaxed media consolidation rules changes everything for the NAB's members.
As suggested in the Orbitcast Forums, a brilliant move would be if Sirius and XM both filed comments with the FCC in support of the NAB's comments. It would further solidify their arguments to merge, not to mention be a wonderful twist of the dagger in Rehr's side. As the old adage says, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
And this is afterall, politics.
I just feel bad for Stackpointer......
When the NAB starts saying they compete with Sat Radio, internet, cell phones and iPods, Stack's and the NAB's whole argument against the Sat Merger GOES UP IN SMOKE. LOL
>>> When the NAB starts saying they compete with Sat Radio, internet, cell phones and iPods, Stack's and the NAB's whole argument against the Sat Merger GOES UP IN SMOKE. LOL
Nonsense. Never have I said that these other forms of media don't "compete with" satellite radio. I have said they aren't "direct" competitors (they aren't) and I've said they aren't "substitutes" within the meaning of the applicable law (and they aren't).
But they certainly "compete", just as McDonalds competes with Ruths Chris, railroads compete with trucking companies, Harley Davidson competes with Hyunda, and Office Depot competes with Walmart. "Fringe competitors"; not direct.
I also pointed out in the forums that NAB's position seems absolutely reasonable to me given what XM/SIRI are asking for.
Doesn't change my mind Stack. I still feel terrible for you.
To have to worm around the upcoming scenerio where NAB is pleading for ownership reform because of all the new media competition is a horrible dilemma for the anti-merger group. Its almost impossible to defend 2 opposing arguments at the exact same time. I don't blame them for taking down the banner, and I just feel so bad for you Stack.
The timing of all this couldn't have been worse for the anti-merger group.
>>> The timing of all this couldn't have been worse for the anti-merger group.
From a practical perspective, the "timing" of it, or anything NAB has to say, has nothing to do with it. DOJ will rule based on the law, either as it stands or as they wish to interpret it going forward. I seriously doubt NAB's stance has a lot of influence on the DOJ's process. FCC is a different matter, but apparently, they will do whatever DOJ does.
Pro-merger forces very much want this process to be dictated by such irrelevant criteria as the number of pro-merger replies at FCC or other side issues. I could be wrong, but I just don't think DOJ is going to give a damn about that stuff. These guys are lawyers and I suspect they are going to much more interested in (a) the law as it now stands, and (b) what the effects of any regulatory precedent they may set if they change their interpretation of it going forward.
Peck and others are convinced the merger is going to happen. And they may be right -- but there is at least some indication that Peck's info is coming from inside Sirius, which makes his interpretation somewhat suspect.
I would expect your posts to become much longer as well Stack. Doublespeak is going to be tough to pull off for the anti merger side. Its going to be a rough road ahead. I'm sorry.
I'm for media consolidation, I'm against media consolidation. We compete with them, they don't compete with us. Its a new media world, nothing has changed.
Man is it gonna be rough.
>>> Doublespeak is going to be tough to pull off for the anti merger side.
"Doublespeak" is suggestive of taking both sides of an issue. While it is within the bounds of my expertise, I don't think I've applied it to the XM/SIRI merger -- my view has been clear and consistent from minute one.
"Doublespeak" is suggestive of taking both sides of an issue. While it is within the bounds of my expertise...."
Awesome, absolutely awesome. Ryan, I just hope you are reading this.......... :)
Geez, man, you need to get out more. You got no sense of humor.
See here is what happens, bigger companies will mean bigger satellite radio growth because people will not want the same song on in 60 percent of the radio markets or the same playlist. I am glad I am working for satellite radio as regular radio is digging its grave! Night night!!!!!!!!! I think David Rehr is honestly preparing his letter of resignation right now.
But if Satellite Radio represents only 4.1% of total listenership, and Sirius grew 79,000%, and terrestrial radio is going down the tubes, how can we say a merger will mean little to the overall industry? If not now then 10 years from now or 20 years, this merged company will be huge and have substantial pricing power.
>>> and Sirius grew 79,000
Please don't attach significance to this figure. There isn't any.
You cannot reasonably apply percentage growth rates when the base year was near-zero. Sirius had failed to get any listeners, whatsoever, in the base year, with total revenue under a million dollars.
Citing this growth rate is worse than idiotic.
You don't have to attack me with insults Stack, I'm on your side about the merger.
5 years from now, we will no longer have music on terrestrial radio.
They can't afford to pay the music royalties, plain and simple
Satellite radio will continue paying royalties but at an increased rate every few years. Sports/Entertainment content will continue play, but of course they will ask for an increased rate.
Terrestrial radio will be forced to become AM radio as we see it today. Satellite radio will become today's terrestrial radio. 10 years, wifi or the next big wireless source will sprout in every corner of every city. Internet will be accessible anywhere in the world, homes, highways, on the beach.
Satellite radio will simply fade, there will be no use for satellite radio. In phone tv's will be in everyone's hands. Satellite company will have to change their business plan and reinvent a new idea or buy out another source of revenue. Wishful thinking- Sirius produces stronger satellites to become the next HIGH SPEED mobile internet.
Has anyone thought that the NAB has backed down and pursued this rush to loosen ownership rules as a block on all mergers.
If the NAB puts the weight of all their hopes and dreams for loosened ownership rules onto the decision for the XM-Sirius merger than everyone might decide this is going to take much more time to decide.
They've switched strategys, joined sides with XM-Sirius, so they all win together or they fail together. either way NAB wins.
I'm not as think as you dumb I am.
:)
The NAB might as well back down. Their "opposition" to this has been so dishonest and so ham-handed that they almost end up working in its favor.
And I've wondered about your point too, Miguel. I wonder if they do fear that a rejection of the XM-Sirius merger would lead to legal grounds to make it more complicated for them to allow Clear Channel to buy another 50,000 stations, which is something far more important to them than this is.