The NAB has released an analysis showing that the A La Carte proposal - the one that the FCC Chairman has just expressed being pleased with - is in fact... a "sham."
The NAB (reaching further back into the coffers of dead terminology by calling the proposal "much-ballyhooed") found that the A La Carte offering in fact costs more on a per-channel basis than what subscribers currently pay.
It's amusing that the NAB finds that a "required hardware upgrade" as being against the public interest, when they're pushing for HD Radio which... requires a hardware upgrade. It's even more amusing that they assume the FCC doesn't see right through this.
Regardless, NAB staff will be meeting with FCC Commissioners and FCC staff this afternoon to present the the pricing chart analysis. In addition, the analysis will be forwarded to the DOJ. Presumably because they are under the assumption that these government agencies cannot perform simple math on their own.
Even the most superficial "analysis" of the A La Carte plan shows that pricing per-channel is higher, but I don' t think that's the point. And apparently neither does Kevin Martin.
Today Martin said he was "pleased any time companies come forward with proposals that would give consumers more control over what they pay for." It's about control, not necessarily price-per-channel. Surely the economies of scale don't escape Mr. Martin (nor the NAB, though they may ignore them in this case), but hey, when you've got an agenda, why let logic get in the way?
Read the full "analysis" here (PDF) or view it after the jump...
This really is a new low for the NAB. Wow. The minimum price option drops from $13 to $7, and this is the best response they can come up with. This is just desperation at this point. I needed a good laugh.
you know...i've been thinking that the pic of whatshisface on the top of every "waaa waaa NAB" post needs a good photochopping.
hey ryan, can you sponsor a contest for best NAB-oriented photochop?
From the press release: "Only in a monopolist's world are 50-channel minimums, higher prices, interoperability restrictions and a required hardware upgrade considered a consumer benefit."
I find it hard to believe the NAB can write this sentence, when the broadcast operations they represent consistently break each of these:
* Channel minimums: Look at any cable company's tiered packages; there's always a "basic" set of channels. Satellite's tiered channel matrix is totally in line with broadcast/cable's own offerings.
* Higher prices: Not sure where they see higher prices; there's more offerings and potential for an individual users, so the price goes up. But it's still not as high as what I'd have to pay today if I subscribed to both XM and Sirius.
* Interoperability restrictions: Not even sure what that means. Interoperable receivers are on the integration plan.
* Required hardware upgrade: That's the cost of progress...much like the mandatory DTV upgrades if you want to watch TV in 2009...or HD Radio if you want to "hear the stations between the stations."
I'm clearly a merger proponent, but these NAB arguments are ridiculous and will be totally transparent to the FCC.
Plus, doesn't "sham" imply an intent on harming or cheating the public? Is that actionable in court? Sounds slanderous...
Anybody who has Satellite already is more than happy with the alacarte offerings. Even if it cost more per channel the product is better and even 50 channels is more than most people will ever need. If the NAB is scared of Satellite than step up the quality of testicular radio and realize we are not all 13 year old girls that listen and then maybe they won't lose their base. If they continue the way they have in the past, AM and FM radio is going to become the typewriter and TV antenna of tomorrow.
Rehr and Ferrera are clowns - how amusing that they would refer to Satellite Radio as as sham, when HD Radio is the real farce:
http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/
Oh good, I'd been missing that photo.
Have I really used that photo that much? Ok, lemme see what I can dig up. I just love Rehr's expression there... it's hard to resist.
This report is a sham-- several of the packages they list for "more than the current service with fewer channels" are bogus. XM and Sirius have already made it clear that you will never pay more than $12.99 unless you want channels from both services. So packages #3,4,6, and 7 on page 2 won't exist. Instead you would continue with the current plans for $12.99 (which will still be around). NAB failed to mention that. Wonder why?
I'm in for the Photoshop contest. Need a theme though.
I'm opposed to the merger, but with friends like the NAB, I don't need enemies. I suppose they are opposed to selling 4 rolls of toilet paper for more per roll than 12 rolls of toilet paper?
Can I apply that logic to buying ad time on their stations? I should be able to buy 50 spots for the same price per spot as someone buying 150 spots, or else it would be a sham for consumers?
This merger has become far more entertaining than I expected it to be. What will keep my interest when this is all over?
Is it safe to say that the NAB is in full PANIC mode? Their argument of cost per channel is imbecile.
Am I the only one who thinks that the minimum package is to replace free FM once the FCC makes the commitment to use FM/AM spectrum for something else besides commercials. Whatever happens with this merger, how long will it take FM/AM to go the way of UHF/VHF. I bet in less than 10 years. Here comes the comet you dinosaurs.
WOW so i pay for 100 channels where i only want 20....so i am paying for 80 channels i dont even WANT.
new pricing i pay for a handful of channels that i WANT and pay 4 bucks less a month....
HUH? how am i loosing out on this deal?
Hell my wife just wants Stern, that saves me 6.99 a month!!!!!
so i am already up to 10.99 savings...
yea so bad for the consumer.
What the NAB blatently omits is that NO one actually listens to 170 channels on XM. At least i dont. Lets say you realistically listen to 80 channels on XM for 12.95. (c'mon i dont need to know traffic in new york if i live in miami) you are REALLY paying 16c even though you have 170 channels. Kinda like cable - more than 60% of the channels (thats being conservative --- i dont watch). So them offering a la carte for 15c is not a price increase. You can manipulate numbers anyway you want. I hope the FCC see's through this attempt at desperation. Ask yourself, if XM/Siri posed NO competitive threat o FM/AM Radio do you think the NAB would care or spend money lobbying against it. That would be a big, fat NO!!!
Rehr has reached a new level. Who really thought that the cost per channel would go down. Paying a higher cost per channel is what the cable companies tell us when they say they are not going to offer tiered pricing because it would not save consumers any money.
Has Rehr ever been to a super market and noticed the "cost per ounce, cost per pound, cost per 100" labels go down when the quantity goes up. Whoever was rehr teaches/professors growing up should find a new job as redr did not learn anything growing up.
I could see rehr outside a warehouse store like bj's or sams and say customers are not saving any money how come these stores make money.
doesn't "sham" imply an intent on harming or cheating the public? Is that actionable in court? Sounds slanderous...
If SIRIUS/XM prove execution on the a la carte programming as stated in their respective SEC filings, I believe they do indeed have a case (slander and defamation suit) against David Rehr, the NAB, the membership of the NAB and the board of directors of participating NAB members.
Guess what happens next....yep, the shareholders of record of XM and SIRIUS can file a class action suit against David Rehr et al.
>>> new pricing i pay for a handful of channels that i WANT and pay 4 bucks less a month....
Isn't that a bit short-sighted?
Of course they'll cut pricing NOW to get the merger through. News Flash: The combined company cannot make money [ever] selling subscriptions at $4 less a month -- in fact, they cannot ever break even at that.
So, what happens? A couple years down the road, you got it -- "Oh, well, we can't make money like this so now you get 50 channels for 11.95". And because you can't just switch from Sirius to XM or XM to Sirius, you're stuck with it. Or, of course, you can go back to terrestrial. LOL.
Don't be naive. "I'm from the government and here to help you".
I see you are drinking heavily again StackPointer.
It doesn't matter about the prices! A la carte will ruin satellite radio!
I will NOT pay for bland radio!
Have you all seen this NAB site:
"XM + SIRIUS = Monopoly"
http://www.xmsiriusmonopoly.org/
HD Radio is falling flat on its face and the NAB is getting desperate.
I find that it is time to post this newspapers column/q&a section. He addresses a question about sat radio and regular radio and I do not really see his logic, although the other posts/articles aren't all that bad. Be warned though he really likes the preston and steve show in philadelphia.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/ask/michael_klein/
"And because you can't just switch from Sirius to XM or XM to Sirius, you're stuck with it"
No i go back to regular radio, i listen to streams on the internet, i go back to my mp3 player and dl songs for free again....
please i have more options then i used to with regular radio that used to be a MONOPOLY
Yup, this '07 not '87. Lots of choices out then at a cost of FREE
Yup, this '07 not '87. Lots of choices out there at a cost of FREE
>>> Yup, this '07 not '87. Lots of choices out there at a cost of FREE
Besides terrestrial radio (which was in existence when XM & SIRI agreed they wouldn't try to merge), what choices exactly are "free"?
Try BitTorrent and the billions of different Podcasts out there. I know you don't agree StackPointer, but it sure seems to suit 100+ million other people with iPods just fine.
>>>>> Try BitTorrent and the billions of different Podcasts out there. I know you don't agree StackPointer, but it sure seems to suit 100+ million other people with iPods just fine.
What you are referring to is either (a) illegal or (b) infomercials. Neither forms the basis of what might be thought of as "compelling" content.
I do admit to occasionally finding a decent podcast -- but in general, it isn't worth the time you spend sifting through the garbage. And if you think BitTorrent is going to become the Media of the Masses, you must be kidding.
StackPointer, there are choices out there - am/fm radio and internet streams are FREE (and abundant) and legal. Its free so you have to put up with whatever comes with it. But there are many LEGAL alternatives you can pay for now that are COMPELLING. iTunes, Napster, etc...they sell music downloads on every corner. But there ARE choices.
Previous comment was mine Stackpointer. Accidentally pressed post without putting my info in, sorry.
•Stack- (damn, you're all over the place)
Just because downloading music that is copyrighted is illegal...doesn't mean downloading all forms of music is illegal and doesn't mean it isn't going to exist in some way. There are hundreds upon thousands of small unsigned bands that are trying to make it everyday and kill at the chance to put free music on torrent sites, myspace music, get local radio play, etc. Any way they can be heard is a huge step for a band. Once record labels and money lust become involved, do we hear about bands not being a fan of downloading music. A friend of mine's been in a band for years. He's got a myspace page for promotion with 5 songs anyone can listen to at anytime. He get thrilled at the increasing of playing small clubs and bars, and just two days ago he said playing music is his dream. Free music will always be available in some way shape or form. And terrestrial radio will always have that fight to lose. (and I'm not naive to think people download unsigned bands, just the counter to downloading music is illegal.)
And nobody can say what's going to happen down the line with the merged companies. Eventually technology, as resources are freed and easier production comes about through advances, becomes cheaper to produce. I don't really see where an increase in subscriptions is a bad thing...
Scenerio: Recievers will most likely always cost $50+ or so, and parents who were on the fence of getting satellite because of price, can now give themselves, their two kids, who each have there own car, a satellite radio and $7 subscriptions to have each one pick their own tastes in channels. That's $200 in recievers sold and a monthly income of $28 per month from that household. As opposed to no income from that family. Granted I haven't seen if family plans are available post-merger, but they're hoping to get subscribers that they don't have now to sign up by offering more options. At this point of offering 'a la carte' programming, they're going to have to make it work once it's available and will be forced to make it price worthy, cost efficient and as readily available as possible for new and existing subscribers. Just because subscribers now have all of something, doesn't mean that adding another cheaper plan for another reason that comes about won't happen.
This merger has become far more entertaining than I expected it to be. What will keep my interest when this is all over?
=======================================================================
My answer to that is counting my money.
I guess i am also going to have to find a new hobby when this is all over. At least it is not over and i am sure some shocking good news is about to happen.
What I have yet to see addressed is WHEN will this a la carte become available. I believe that neither XM nor Sirius has any clue how they are going to pull this off. How long after the merger is complete will we see these new plans/hardware become available?
A merger is probably going to take a year to complete and then they might start thinking about implementing this. It will be another year or so before we see anything.
I'm with the NAB on this one. I think this is a bone they are throwing out there to try to get approval. If XM/Sirius could conceivably do this, why didn't they do it any sooner?
because its not financially feasible as two stand-alone companies? if the redundancies are eliminated and the economies of scale start to kick in after the merger, then such a pricing plan starts to make financial sense.
What's funny is that all these satellite radio subscribers talk about their other options, and then Stack tries to tell you that you don't have any options. This is a biased XM fanatic, who hates the merger because he hates Sirius, desperately trying to impose his personal opinion on other people.
The overwhelming majority of subscribers feel like they have a choice, regardless of whether or not they like the merger. But forums like this tend to bring out fanatics like Stack who can't talk about the issue from the perspective of a rational subscriber. He's so in love with XM that he can't believe that anyone else could think that they have a choice, so he spends 8 hours a day on this board trying to "prove" to moderates that they don't have a choice. Find a new job Stack.
NAB in FULL panic mode now.....tee-hee
@Anonymous Coward: Both XM and Sirius have stated that the A La Carte packages would be available starting within one year following the merger.
Read the details here.