It's sad that the New York Post is actually giving any attention to the NAB's "analysis" - and subsequent name-calling - of Sirius-XM's proposed A La Carte pricing.
Then again, Peter Lauria does leave subtle drops about the NAB's "increasingly vitriolic quest" to block the merger, as well as their critique of A La Carte "coincides, somewhat inopportunely," with the words of praise from the FCC Chairman.
And I'm glad he picked up on this bit: "...while Sirius and XM have been open about the equipment upgrades needed for a la carte, the NAB does not mention that terrestrial broadcasting's push into high-definition radio also will require a hardware upgrade."
In other words, "do as I say, not as I do."
More choice... choose what you want to receive with a-la-carte. Cheaper... $6.99 vs. $12.95. Yeah, it will bring more choice, and it will bring cheaper... And with for those of us that might only enjoy 50 channels of one service or the other, it gives us a choice of what we want to receive, and it's cheaper. It may not be cheaper per channel... but per month is what we pay, right?
As Vallyewag points out, Karmazin's rhetoric is filled with flaws.
"Please, please, please ... be too stupid to realize that this isn't a la carte. Your phone contract, with its minute tiers and additional fees for unlimited texting or web access, and your TV plan with its premium packages works exactly the same way. And, please, don't think about all those consumers lobbying the government for true a la carte cable, not tiered subscriptions. The only way the government will approve this merger is if we adopt the trendy phrase "a la carte," without really meaning it...Existing customers will not be offered more choice. For them, choice will be more expensive."
With NAB,
SpringFling
Rehr confirms that a male can be a c*nt.
So does he always make gestures and stick his lips out like that? Looks like that was taken a half second after the shot Ryan used a day or two ago...
I just love that the pic of Rehr makes him look like a total jackass, which he obviously is.
TK
Rehr kind of reminds me of the main character in "Thank You For Smoking"
Rehr kind of reminds me of the main character in "Thank You For Smoking"
He's just mad because you can get a satellite radio and a year's sub for less than the price of these HD radios. Silly man.
Rehr. Heheh. Rehr.
>>So does he always make gestures and stick his lips out like that?
i think that his lips have frozen in that position from years and years of "associating" with the politicians on the NAB's payroll....
NAB getting desperate as writing on the wall
man these comments on here are funny as hell. hahaha
Down with the NAB!!!
This "valleywag" blog is written by a real moron. probably a pimple faced punk kid. anyhow, the comment about the aforementioned article....
"satellite radio is such a weak offering that is can only "compete" by having a monopoly."
- Im going to assume you all see how moronic this statement is. My question to the author would be: Compete with whom? This would collapse his inflated sense of self-worth quite readily one would imagine.
full disclosure, i've done some consulting for tv stations in the past, and i'm not a satrad subscriber, altho my father is and my brother has both and sirius. anyway, i'm leaning against the merger, but not because of anything the nab has said or done. I've looked at the fcc's webpage on the merger, and it seems like there's alot of opposition to the merger from other groups and people that have nothing do with the NAB. everyone on this site and on siriusbuzz seems to focus all their attention on the nab, probably deserved so, but i'm certain that consumers union, consumer federation of american, common cause, free press and all the other public interest groups that are against the merger are involved in many projects at the fcc, and that they all usually disagree with the nab on most things, especially how many tv and radio stations one company should be allowed to own. if these groups are experts at representing consumers interests, what's your take on their opposition to the merger? i've read their papers on the fcc website, and they make alot of convincing arguments. just wondering, thanks.
All this is is a bunch of free ads for Sat radio.
As far as the merger XM has one thing i would like but not worth having two radios and subs.
I look at all this from the NAB as they want the merged company to be a member.
Just about everything they are doing is helping the merger.
•Chico
The Parents Television Council (PTC), American Values, ATR and the 60 Plus Association, Women Impacting Public Policy, The League of Rural Voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens, The Latino Coalition, The National Black Chamber of Commerce...I can list a bunch of orginizations in support of the merger, too. The NAB is easy to make fun of when they offer up arguements that even people who read this website see right through. 'Forcing technology upgrades on listeners', while they push HD radios at listeners. 'No options" while 'a la carte' pricing plans give cheaper options and gives subscribers channels they choose. It's all one dumb point after the next on the NAB's side of this.
And I was slowly losing interest in the merger. I am a subscriber and everytime I see an NAB arguement being such a lie, I see more of how as a subscriber I do actually have a lot of options from this merger. I have a lifetime subscription to sirius that'll pay itself off in another year and a half or so. To which point I'd maybe consider getting the XM sports package for MLB and NHL, while I'd know that my money's going to the same company and not threateing Sirius in any way as it would now. Actual subscribers (and I know not 100%, but seems like more and more) are saying they want this merger approved and see options. As much as public opinion groups and unions have to say, subscribers speek the loudest or at least should to the FCC.