"I guarantee that those who are happy with their current service and do not want anything from the rival one are going to be disappointed after the merger. They will be paying the same price and will likely see some favorites be replaced by "equivalent" channels from the rival service. (Folks are kidding themselves if they think this will not happen. The combined corporation will be looking to reduce duplicate costs.)

"Remember kids: corporations are not your friends."

Perfectly said, Dude. I couldn't have put it better myself. This "clarification" of the Pricing of Tomorrow is exactly what I thought it would be. If you want what you're getting now (or as close as a subscriber to both XM and Sirius like me will be able to get), it's gonna cost you more than $12.95/month.

The way they were beating around the bush and parsing their words up to now told anyone who isn't Terri Schiavo what the deal was gonna be: More Money For The Same (or similar) Deal.

Here's another prediction: channels like Sirius Left are toast. They'll say, "Hey, you already have Air America. You don't need another left-wing channel." The same "logic" will apply to any channel which arguably "overlaps" any channel the programming for which XM/Sirius gets for free or where they have a special deal.

Like every other big corporation in America, their wet dream is to employ as few people as possible.

The way I see it, they already have a lot of channels that are similar. So if one drops on either side to replace the redundancy, who cares? All it means is the remaining channel has a larger catalog to choose from. In all honesty, when picking from Sirius or XM, the deciding factor for me was how had the better NPR selection. Everything else, save for individual personalities like Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony was pretty much equal.

What I'm more concerned about is getting what I have now for about the same price. So long as they maintain the level of what I'm currently getting from Sirius, and the price doesn't move more than a 1.00 or so in either direction, I'm flexible.

thanks Mel, you have proven to me that the merger will not be a finantial sucess.

A Cheaper than the 12.95 option for a "Best Of" ? I for the most part listen to the 80's channel, and the hair metal as well as classic rock channels. I do not want Stern, MLB, NFL, NASCAR, Oprah, or even O&A despite being a fan (however I'm not a pest)

I am sure I am not alone. This Merger IMO will double the subscribers while nearly doubling the loss as well as reducing the revenue added on top of the cost of the merger, As a share holder in both companies its becomming obvious that I should not expect a return on my investment for many many years to come. Although I may get a nice tax write off.

Well said Crankymediaguy. It's like the cable companies...in the beginning they offered an extensive selection of programming/channels for one set price. Now that they have "sucked a large part of the population into subscribing their services", they now charge more for less programming. I know it's an old example, but it still stands as a good one especially in this case.

The way this is phrased makes it seem like XM's music programming is largely going to be phased out entirely. The "best-of" package would be "all of Sirius, including Howard Stern and the NFL, and parts of XM's big-ticket programming, including 'Oprah and Friends' and the MLB." What about the best-of package that includes all of XM plus the Sirius sports and talk exclusives? Probably doesn't exist because XM will no longer exist.

Please, FCC, stop this merger, so I can keep my favorite XM music programming and philosophy. I love XM and want absolutely nothing from Sirius, meaning there's no way, no possible way, that this merger can benefit me.

Sirius would do best to detail as soon as possible how much of XM they will be phasing out as soon as they take over.

"Remember kids: corporations are not your friends."

"Like every other big corporation in America, their wet dream is to employ as few people as possible."

You do know that the NAB represents corporations far larger than XM and Sirius, right? So you follow this line of corporate bullshit but not another? XM is trying to screw you but Clear Channel isn't?

Pfffft.

"This "clarification" of the Pricing of Tomorrow is exactly what I thought it would be. If you want what you're getting now (or as close as a subscriber to both XM and Sirius like me will be able to get), it's gonna cost you more than $12.95/month."

From what I have read along the way these are additional options. You will also have the option of doing nothing and keeping the service you currently have for the same price you are paying now.But for those who could care less about the news and sport stuff they will have the OPTION of droping those channels and PAYING LESS PER MONTH.

But for those who could care less about the news and sport stuff they will have the OPTION of droping those channels and PAYING LESS PER MONTH.

OPTIONS? THERE'S NO OPTIONS IN MONOPOLIES!! BWAK! BWAK! BUGAWK!

Hey crankymediaguy,

You are a true liberal through and through with your whinny rant. If you knew how to read, you would have realized you will not be charged more for what you get now.

If you want to add the additional XM programming that Sirius never had before the merger, you will pay more. It makes sense. This programming is not free and is a cost that the business must charge customers a fee for them to listen.

Besides, you never had it before, so what is the big deal. Keep what you got and pay $12.95. Or, add the extra programing for a few bucks more and deal with it. If you don't like it, then don't pay for the service.

It's called business, not a hand out that you liberals always want.

Stop whinning and acting line a baby!!!

I love people who have such great faith in the kindness of monopolies. Oh I forgot, it is not a monopoly because they will compete in the "things you hear with your ear" market. A narrow definition to be sure!

...must...believe...everything...Mel...says...he...never...lied...
Mel- Back seat video? Oh, its this year, no this year, no this year now for sure!

I love people who have such great faith in the kindness of monopolies.

I love people who do not understand the definition of 'monopoly'.

The exact same AFI song can be heard on FM, web radio, iTunes, Slacker, and XM. The exact same Yankee game can be heard on AM, FM, and XM.

The combination of XM and Sirius does not mean you will no longer be able to hear your favorite top 40 crap or football game.

So "MeatFarley" you would be okay with all cell phone companies merge into on carrier? You could make the exact same call on a landline, satellite telephone, or on a VOIP service. Since you have these options you should be okay, right?

It is the monopoly of the delivery system, not the content stupid.

The combination of XM and Sirius does not mean you will no longer be able to hear your favorite top 40 crap or football game.

it might mean that xm's deep playlist are replaced with sirius's same crap you hear on am and fm . no merger for me please .

The "all of Sirius" scares me also.

Telecom and entertainment are two different completely different things. One is a necessity and the other is a luxury. You don't use your satellite radio to call for help.

Go read the wikipedia entry on what a monopoly is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Specifically the primary characteristics, none of which apply to this merger...
No close substitutes: Monopoly is not merely the state of having a unique or recognizable product, but also that there are no close substitutes available for the function the good fills.

I can think of SEVERAL substitutes. Just because the content is delivered by different means, it's still the same fucking thing. THERE IS NO MONOPOLY!

If Mel didn't have anything to hide, he would have outlined a pricing and programming structure by now. In my opinion you won't be able to keep our exact same programming at $12.95/month. It may not be possible to even keep the EXACT same programming (hopefully this is not a double post, when I clicked preview before it said that my post was sent).

Yeah...The "All Sirius programming and some XM highlights" thing REALLY bugs me. Sorry, but I've heard Sirius's music channels, and other than some of the specialty shows on Outlaw Country, and the NFL programming, Sirius has NOTHING beneficial to me as an XM subscriber.

In the beginning, I thought the merger had the potential to be a good idea, but as time has gone on, I see it's going to be Mel's way, all the way...No thanks. I've submitted MY opposition to the merger to the FCC.

Why doesn't Mel show exactly what those packages would be.. Stop talking and show what would be etched in (stone) clay... Sure, talk is cheap, and Mel should have this price idea out there on a web site or something... I know there are sports fans out there that get satellite radio for this reason pretty much alone.. But what would the pricing tiers be?? Show and tell time Mel.. I mean I'm way against the merger, but if you want to sway me in the merger direction then give us some proof beyond talk, "talk is cheap" show us some proof...

This basic anti-merger argument keeps getting repeated: "I don't like the other service's programming, so the merger won't help me."

Then don't listen to those other channels. You can still get the same channels for the same price after the merger, if you so CHOOSE. However, many other people would like the CHOICE to pick content from each service, and that's the major reason for the merger. You do not speak for all subscribers.

"Since I personally don't like the other service, I don't think other people should have the choice to listen to those channels either, so I'm going to oppose the merger."

And to Chipper:
Mel has not outlined an exact pricing structure because that is a matter of negotiation with the FCC. That is exactly what this article is talking about. Mel and the FCC will work on a pricing structure that is beneficial to both the company and to subscribers.

JB Said:
"And to Chipper:
Mel has not outlined an exact pricing structure because that is a matter of negotiation with the FCC. That is exactly what this article is talking about. Mel and the FCC will work on a pricing structure that is beneficial to both the company and to subscribers."

That's BS man. How are we, the public, the subscribers, supposed to give an informed opinion on the merger when we don't know the most important facts?!?! I hope they make him take a stand sooner than later.

Let's put it this way Chipper:

Neither the FCC nor the market will allow Karmazin get away with a pricing structure that screws subscribers. Regardless, he has given us a pretty good idea of what he wants to offer post-merger. What he is proposing is that the customer gets these basic choices:

A) The same programming (with a few added channels from the alternate service) for the same price as before the merger.

B) A discounted (less than $12.99) service for people who don't want to pay for the big-ticket items (like MLB and Howard Stern).

C) The complete programming lineup of XM+Sirius for a significant discount off the current $26 combined price.

So I don't see what the issue is here - worst case, you get a couple of extra channels for the same price you're paying now.

For them to announce the exact details this early in the process would be like a baseball team announcing a free agent's salary before the contract is signed. They have given us a good idea of what they want to do, but the exact details will depend on the FCC's feedback.

I still disagree with you JB. The goal of this merger is to create value, not destroy it. I don't see how they can keep ALL of the same channels they have now and increase the value of a combined company. The only way is to eliminate options. So how can they create value and offer the same choices?

The answer:
They can't.

Right now you have music, news, etc. + MLB + certain college stuff + Oprah + other exclusive stuff on XM.

On Sirius you have music, news, etc. + NHL + NFL + Stern + other exclusive stuff on Sirius.

What benefit does Karmazin have if the combined company still has music + news + other overlapping material from both companies? If they have a song playing on a rock station XM and the same song playing on a rock station on Sirius, then are they paying twice as much in royalties? What do they do? Eliminate one of the stations.

Then customers who had one service have to settle for stations that were on the other service. I don't see how that is keeping my service unchanged.

If they're going to do a tiered system, I still believe that all of the content that is currently exclusive will be priced about the $12.95 mark. I don't think you will be able to get Stern for $12.95 or less. I also don't think you will be able to get NFL, MLB, etc. for that price.

I am making some assumptions here, but Hell, I have no choice. Prove me wrong Karmazin. Until you do, I am vehemently opposed to the merger.

And even JB is right... how long until that changes if it is approved?

Chipper:

You are correct in the fact that they are going to eliminate channels. Why have 9 country stations when 4 or 5 will do? Why have 20 rock stations when 7-10 will do. Everyone has their favorite channels, and there will be some that have theirs canceled. But just because they cancel the CHANNEL does not mean they are canceling the PROGRAMMING. Sure, they may cancel your Outlaw Country, but if there is a certain program on there that you like, chances are there are others that like it too. If there are enough of you, they will keep that DJ or what ever and continue that program on THEIR version of an Outlaw Country.

Karmazin is not a stupid or an evil man. He has invested well over 20 million dollars of his own money in to SIRI. He is not out to piss off his customers that pay his paycheck. He is out to make himself as rich as possible. The only way for that to happen is for the combined company to become highly successful. The only way the company can become is by making its SUBSCRIBERS happy. That would be you and me and the other 14 million of us out there.
Sure, some stations will get the ax. That may piss some people off, and some may cancel. But with an agressive pricing program and SUPERIOR programming, it will get many more to join.

As far as the "All of Sirius and parts of XM" comment, it doesnt worry me as much. I am an XM subscriber, and my parents are Sirius subscribers. I have listened to their radios many times while at their house or on trips with them. I actually like much of the programming better than XM, because to me XM is alot closer to terrestrial than Sirius is. Just my opinion. Im sure they will look at which shows draw higher audiances and move those to the combined system rather than just killing off ALL programing from XM.

The Dude said:

"It's called business, not a hand out that you liberals always want."

Thanks for the laugh, Dude. Currently, I subscribe to both Sirius and XM. I would be perfectly happy to have both companies continue as is and continue to pay for both of them. What "handout" are you referring to?

What cracks me up about corporatists is how they tout "competition" when it suits their interests and defend monopoly when THAT suits their interests.

I'm of the opinion that competition always benefits the consumer. You know, competition, that thing that made American business great in the first place?

I guess you called me a liberal because I used Sirius Left as an example of a channel I suspect will go bye-bye if the merger goes through. Would you have called me a rapper if I had cited one of the overlapping "Urban" channels?

"Stop whinning and acting line a baby!!!"

Sure, just as soon as you learn to stop spelling like one. By the way, how is it "acting like a baby" to say that I like the variety I get now from the two satellite radio services?

Brian R:

One of my points above is that people are saying you will be able to keep your service unchanged after the merger. That's not true. And I like my service how it is. How is the merger going to benefit me? It's not.

How does a company make more money? They raise prices or sell more. They don't lower prices and try to get more subscribers just to break even. Of course Karmazin wants to make money on whatever his investment is (if you say $20 million, I'll take your word for it). But if he takes a gamble and loses, he's getting paid more money this year than I will make in a lifetime anyway. Sounds win-win for Mel.

Oh, not to mention that when the FCC issued the satellite radio licenses it was under the condition that one company did not control both.

After reading some of the uninformed pro and anti-merger arguments here this concept definitely needs some clarification:

NO CHANNELS WILL BE ELIMINATED AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER. They will not be able to eliminate duplicate channels until either A)they develop a common satellite distribution system or B)they give every existing subscriber a dual-mode radio. Mel said they will continue to operate as separate systems for the next 10 years until the current satellites reach the end of their life cycle.

For the music channels, they pay royalties based on a percentage of revenue, NOT as a per channel rate. Therefore there is almost no benefit to dropping a channel, except maybe to save a few thousand bucks on the DJ's salary (but even then the cost to replace the channel is probably more than the guy's salary). And nowhere has Mel said that everyone will get a Sirius + the best of XM service. Don't you think that would piss off a lot of XM subscribers? Sirius subscribers will get all of the current Sirius programming, plus a few XM channels, on their existing Sirius radios. XM subscribers will get all of the current XM programming, plus a few Sirius channels, on their existing XM radios. Mel has repeated this several times now. For at least the first 10 years, you will get the exact same channel lineup + a couple of extras, for the same $13 price (unless you choose one of the other pricing packages).

If any channels get dropped from your service, it will be because not enough people are listening, just as it is now. The fact that they are merging will not allow them to drop channels just for the hell of it, because they will still have to give customers a reason to keep paying them every month after the merger.

JB, they could easily eliminate channels. Eliminate a channel on XM, simulcast a channel from Sirius instead. Vice Versa. Right now XM is paying royalties on their music, sirius is paying royalties on their music. You think the RIAA is going to let them out of that if they merge? How will they pay less in royalties if they still have the same # of channels?

Just because you can't get Sirius reception on an XM radio doesn't mean that you can't beam digital data that is recorded in the Sirius studios to the XM Satellites. It's redundant, but it also makes more business sense than broadcasting two similar channels.

Special K isn't going to line his pockets with the price increases. He's going to do it by bringing commercials to the music channels.

Let's hear him promise that he won't put commercials on the music channels if the merger gets approved. Better yet, make that part of the written agreement that he signs with the FCC if the dip-shit merger gets approved.

I'm confused - where did I write that they could save on royalty fees? I actually said the exact opposite - the music royalties are a set percentage of total revenue regardless of how they shuffle the channels. It's the same percentage for XM and Sirius. That's why I said they would get no real benefit from eliminating an XM music channel and replacing it with the Sirius version. All that would do is piss off XM subscribers without saving the company any money, so why would they even try? Does that make good "business sense"?

Now I get it. JB stands for "Joe Business."