Oh My!

Merger approval just went up another 10 percent....They should all just invest there money into the stock and then approve it...

Well this is unexpected...

mel knows whhat they need to propose before getting approval--the question is, will politics, payoffs and NAB "buy" a decision in their favor

/sits and waits for StackPointer to come in and spin to us that Martin is actually displeased and how facts should not be allowed get in the way of preventing this merger.

"/sits and waits for StackPointer to come in and spin to us that Martin is actually displeased and how facts should not be allowed get in the way of preventing this merger."

lol...might be a few minutes, i think he's waiting for his last paycheck from the NAB to clear.

either that, or his logic made his hed asplode.

Wow, can you believe it. People really think that there is a chance for this merger to go through. No one believes that the FCC will allow a Monopoly to control Sat Radio.
But, it would be a great investment... that is owning a company that has a monopoly.

I believe there was more to Martin's remarks than is being bandied about in these news stories. Perhaps the rest of it will come out later on.

what monopoly? the only way a "real" monopoly works is in an environment of high price inelasticity, wheras the consumer has no choice but to pay the stated price to fulfill their demand...no matter how high prices are driven, demand is constant.

i'd hate to go bursting ego bubbles around here...but SatRad demand will change like the weather given any level of price variance (either way, up or down). there's a very finite price level at which their targeted consumer base will say "screw this, i'm going back to Terr(ible)Rad".

if this *alleged* monopoly is going to be allowed to be put into effect...it can't function like a monopoly at all with regards to jacking up its prices because consumers will have no other option.

lets get out of the textbooks and into the real world, folks. use your brains.

and FYI: most monopolies aren't great investments...why would you want to invest in a company with no reason to innovate and no reason to strive toward internal cost/profit efficiency?

>>> i'd hate to go bursting ego bubbles around here...but SatRad demand will change like the weather given any level of price variance (either way, up or down).

This isn't consistent with the empirical results of Xm's price increase.

XM raised its price 30% a couple years ago and even in the face of massive spending by its competitor (that would be Sirius), Xm's churn has been reasonably stable (there was a brief pop when Stern showed up at Sirius). There is nothing in the events since that price increase that would suggest that satellite radio buyers have responded to the 30% increase.

Elasticity of demand is not a linear function and certainly a price can be reached where demand levels off. Sirius may be close to that level, but I see nothing to suggest that XM (which can deliver 30% more content than Sirius) is approaching that point.

Any monopoly argument lost it's legs when the NAB on multiple occasions cited SATRAD as a competitor. You cannot have it both ways, shills.

>> >Any monopoly argument lost it's legs when the NAB on multiple occasions cited SATRAD as a competitor. You cannot have it both ways,

Oh. So whether or not there is a monopoly depends on the actions of NAB?

Right.

Oh. So whether or not there is a monopoly depends on the actions of NAB?

Right

Oh shit. My bad. I forgot. It's YOUR definition of monopoly that matters. Not the FCC's or the NAB's and certainly not the Oxford fucking dictionary's definition.

Again, my bad.

>>Oh. So whether or not there is a monopoly depends on the actions of NAB?

yeah....by sheer definition. monopolies don't have competition, yet the NAB seems hell-bent on proving that this deal shouldn't go because it supposedly won't have any competitive effect on them at all? why is that?

No, no, no, you just don't understand. The NAB is just looking out for us consumers. They don't want a monopoly where satellite radio prices go too high and people start cancellng and going back to terrest.. err.. wait, I'm confused.

>>>> .by sheer definition. monopolies don't have competition, yet the NAB seems hell-bent on proving that this deal shouldn't go because it supposedly won't have any competitive effect on them at all? why is that?

But when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone & LD, people could still communicate by US Postal Service or by telegraph. Why was AT&T broken up?

Do you really expect anyone to buy these ridiculous analogies Stack? You are insulting our intelligence.

Satellite radio is not a utility company. It is not even analogous. I do not need to explain this any further.

HOO HOO, Kevin Martin looks like he's a 2 years younger version of Harry Potter.

TELL 'EM FRED

But when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone & LD, people could still communicate by US Postal Service or by telegraph. Why was AT&T broken up?

Because long distance is a necessity. Satellite radio is not a commodity like oil and steel nor a vital service like electricity or telecom. It's a luxury.

Keep swinging retard.

>>>> You are insulting our intelligence.

Presumes facts not in evidence.

Presumes facts not in evidence.

You wouldn't know what a fact was if it walked in the room and rested it's balls on your chin.

StackPointless,

Please start you own blog and afford us an opportunity to choose not to read your drivel. You make no sense and your mantra is getting very old. You are single handedly ruining Ryan's blog. Why are you trying to monopolize this blog? I have an eight year old son that doesn't beg for attention as much as you.

Step away from the computer.

Just keep on making ridiculous analogies and attack people who call you out on them, and perhaps eventually someone will believe your pseudo-intelligent claims. Emotions and logic do not always coincide, and it's pretty obvious that your emotion (hatred of Sirius) is hindering your ability to exhibit common sense on this matter. When you start comparing satellite radio to utility companies, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

But if you'd like to bury a bigger hole for yourself, then go ahead and enlighten us with some more "clever" analogies. We can all use a little more entertainment.

Say what you will about StackPointer (and I certainly disagree with him about the monopolistic effects of an XM/Sirius merger) but at least he tries to be respectful of others' opinions, and discuss these issues like an adult. Not all his detractors can make the same claim.

>> Emotions and logic do not always coincide, and it's pretty obvious that your emotion (hatred of Sirius) is hindering your ability to exhibit common sense on this matter. When you start comparing satellite radio to utility companies, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Could you please explain, specifically, how any position I've taken in this discussion reflects a "hatred of Sirius"?

Stack it doesn't matter if it is this discussion or a thousand other ones. We all know that you dislike sirius.

No! The Federal Censorship Commission only likes a la carte pricing because it bolsters their conservative-right position of "no adult content". The content companies have mostly stood up to them, but if Mel Karmazin has his way, the sat companies will end up killing off their edgy content because it does not sell.

Do not merge!

(P.S. Save The System)

StackPointer said "Could you please explain, specifically, how any position I've taken in this discussion reflects a "hatred of Sirius"?

I ask:

Do you remember these quotations made by you?

"I *DO*, however, want to see XM destroy Sirius ("kick SIRI's teeth in"). " and "This is about me wanting to see XM crunch its boot heels into Sirius' teeth."

^ hmmmm...

you know, i hate sirius too...but i love XM. why am i in favor of the merger? easy.

because if this merger doesn't pass, both XM and sirius are PRIME targets for takeover within the near term. they haven't posted a profit yet, they are grossly in debt, and they each have MILLIONS of shareholders who are dreaming of when their stocks were twice as high...and who wouldn't think for a second about accepting the first offer that gets put on the table.

is there anyone here who honestly doesn't see why the NAB wants this to fail? lol...who do you think are going to be the first people in line to tender an offer? of fucking course!!!! NAB members!!!! they're foaming at the mouth for seamless coast-to-coast advertising coverage.

i am FOR the merger because I love SatRad, and I don't want to see it left in the gutter for dead once the NABastards have their rape-and-pillage party with it.

>>> i am FOR the merger because I love SatRad, and I don't want to see it left in the gutter for dead once the NABastards have their rape-and-pillage party with it.

What's the difference? NAB takes it over? Sirius takes it over? Same thing, isn't it?

XM and Sirius, without competition from each other, will simply become the NAB version 2. It may take a few years (although, with Mel at the helm, it may not).

Without competition, the industry dies. At least as a separate entity, there is a chance XM will continue to thrive unfettered. Merge with Sirius, and inside of a year, it will be just as unlistenable as Sirius is today.

Oh, and yes, Rich -- I remember the quote. Honestly, I'd settle for you having XM's boot heels crunched into your teeth instead.

>>What's the difference? NAB takes it over? Sirius takes it over? Same thing, isn't it? XM and Sirius, without competition from each other, will simply become the NAB version 2.

the NAB became what they are because for years they were the only player in town...because there was no competition. that drove them to hell...there was no one to prod them in the right direction.

that is, until SatRad came to town.

now, the NAB is being shown for the pile of steaming shit it has become...because people can now experience audio entertainment generally devoid of the hours and hours of nationally-syndicated drivel and tripe and endless commercials and god aweful music.

people have FINALLY been given a choice.

the goal of XM and Sirius, both apart and combined, is to succeed at their business...which is converting as many listeners to SatRad AWAY from TerRad as possible. in order to succeed, they must differentiate themselves from whatever else the listener might want to listen to...and they are. everyday. to millions and millions of listeners each day. and you are one of them.

Stack, SatRad is competing for listeners with TerRad, and TerRad is competing with SatRad right back...and you were a part of it. at one distinct point, you consciously chose SatRad over TerRad...you, for a brief moment in time, examined the properties of each and made a CHOICE that your time and entertainment dollar were better served by investing in SatRad over TerRad. for that same brief moment, both SatRad and TerRad were COMPETING with each other for your time and entertainment dollar....because they each know that you can only be listening to and providing revenue to only one service at a time. you made your decision to invest in SatRad. so did I. so did millions of other listeners....WE ALL PREFERRED SatRad over WHATEVER ELSE WAS COMPETING for our time and entertainment dollar.

Stack, this is how capitalist markets operate. always have, always will. each and every product that occupies the same marginal and exclusive "demand" that the consumer has competes with each other. my iPod competes with my Inno...because every day when i sit in my office, i consciously CHOOSE to listen to one instead of the other. Amtrak competes with my car and Delta airlines...because each time i need to go from DC to NY, i CHOOSE to travel via one instead of the others. my bottle of Desani competes with my bottle of Jameson's Irish Whiskey...because each time i need to quench my thirst, I CHOOSE one bottle over the other.

Stack...without the merger...there won't BE SatRad (and there won't be a shire either, pippen). the reason the industry is surviving (kinda) up to now isn't because XM and Sirius are competing AGAINST each other...its because XM and Sirius are competing WITH each other, AGAINST the entire audio broadcast media!!!!! if this merger doesn't go though, BOTH companies are as good as sold...to the very companies that we as SatRad-ers have been fleeing since the day we called in our radio ID's!!!!

to blatantly ignore the fundamental truth of this simple concept of market dynamics is to akin to standing outside at noon on a clear day and saying that its nighttime out because you closed your eyes and can't see the sun.

/book.

knowing that there are people in this world with this much illogic seeping out of their brains keeps me up at night. thanks.

Dumpus

I have never suggested that sat radio doesn't "compete" with terrestrial, ipods, or anything else. I have said only that they are not part of the relevant market for antitrust purposes, and I have presented more authoritative support for that position than anyone else in any of these threads. The reality is that the courts have looked at the question and consistently decided against the broader view of competition. Now, you can call me "illogical" or as others have done, a "Sirius-hating" "fanatic", but the reality is that if existing law is followed, satellite radio will be considered a market of its own, and the merger will be considered anti-competitive and therefore disallowed.

The outcome of the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger could change things. But the FTC is definitely fighting it and it would appear they have a strong position.

>>>> without the merger...there won't BE SatRad

Okay, fine. Let the companies say that. I would never, ever support the merger when the companies are being dishonest about their reasoning for it. If they need it to survive, Mel and Parsons should come out and say, "Hey, if we don't get the merger, we won't be here to compete 5 years down the road". They have both denied this to date.

Personally, I believe both companies can survive without the merger. I do believe XM is quite a bit stronger financially, but I still believe both can survive.

The point is if the companies want the merger on grounds they cannot survive without it, they need to come out and say that. It would absolutely change MY view of it and frankly, it would change the legal picture substantially (since a merger to monopoly is not considered anticompetitive if it is determined that one of the companies will be lost to financial failure anyway).