The diversity argument is even more difficult to sustain from a pro-merger perspective than is the competition argument.

Diversity in programming, in the context raised by FCC, has traditionally implied "diversity of control": If you have a large number of stations under common control, is it not presumed that the content is less diverse than those same stations under diverse control?

We've heard claims about more "diverse" programming, but that is obviously not happening. When you have ONE entity in control instead of two, you are NOT going to have "more diversity" unless it suits the entity's pocketbook. And we all know that diversity isn't always the path to profitability.

The reality is that the first task before XM and Sirius, after the merger, is to reduce diversity. Instead of six classical channels between the two, we'll have three. Instead of two blues channels, we'll have one. Instead of two full sets of Decades channels, we'll have one. Shared between the two services.

Instead of getting an "XM" point of view and a "Sirius" point of view, you'll have a single, "New Company" point of view. A great example is XM's perspective on 60s programming versus Sirius' perspective. Two radically different ways of programming essentially the same content. One will be gone.

That, folks, isn't "diversity". That is a monolith, under the control of one entity without a competitor to move it off dead center.

XM's diversity in programming is probably the most appealing thing about it, to me at least. And this is one reason I have so adamantly opposed to the merger -- the merger means the death of diversity.

Stack Pointer is a Foot Tapper.

We all know how you feel and even though you describe your point is 7 paragraphs it doesn't matter. You can sprinkle potpourri on shit to cover the scent but in the end it is still shit.

It is not the amount of stations/channels that Xirium/Xirius offer it is the quality of those channels. No matter how diverse the owners in media get the program is always going to suffer. Take Philadelphia radio as an example. Ever stations plays the same crap. The New alternative station that is supposed to be the replacement that Philly has been waiting for over 2 years plays alternative songs from the early 90's.

If you ask a former listener of that station that does not own a satellite radio who Franz Ferdinand, Interpol, AFI, etc are they would not have heard about them on philadelphia radio. Local radio is just not filling the voids that are left by formats that are not offered.

BTW, I was with a couple of people over the weekend, 1 of which would not pay for satellite radio and listened to the top morning show hear gave up on local radio. He said it is just not listen able anymore. Granted he uses an MP3 player and not satellite but that only proves more that Sat Radio has competition.

I'll buy the diversity argument if O&A are kept after the merger.

stackpointer = david rehr

>> I'll buy the diversity argument if O&A are kept after the merger.

Why would they NOT be kept? That's not the issue at all. Of course O&A will be kept -- they are the only shock jocks who are actually turning a profit for satellite radio.

Once again, we have Karmazin trying to redefine the traditional terminology of the FCC. In the past, "competition" meant "direct, head-to-head" competition; he wants to define competition as anything that might conceivably, someday, create sound in your car. In the past, "diversity" meant stations under different ownership; now, he wants to redefine it as "a merger scenario in which the post-merger entity providers fewer total channels of content".

At least a rational argument CAN be made for redefining competition. But there is simply no way a sensible argument can be made that the post-merger scenario is "more diverse". The argument would be laugh out loud funny -- if there wasn't so much at stake.

if they don't merge and they both go belly up I done. I will listen to the sounds of my car engine.

after thought, they both could go "belly up", but would likely still exist anyway.. Also the merger could just be a stop-gap before going bankrupt... This is a rather tricky situation for all involved here, including the investors who could as well lose their ass-sandwiches... I hope that all the "on air talent" (O&A etc.) are kept.. But Mel would likely trim the fat eventually after the merger and that means buying the duo out of their contract or worse yet since they are signed to XM til what, 2011 or whatever, that he does another "pay not to play" type deal that they were nailed with before.. That would SUCK!!! There I said it.. Whatever or however you stand on the Opie and Anthony show, love them or hate them, they should be allowed to be competition for Howard as well as whatever might come down the road ... That is after all what they are saying, that they want a competitive market...