NAB calls Sirius-XM survey "loaded"

I don't care about if they merge or not, but if they are going to push ala cart pricing to get the merger through then I think they should issue out new radios to existing customers so they can get the ala cart choice programing without having to buy new ones.

Yeah, it's too bad most people don't care about the "per channel" cost, and only look at the bottom line... Besides, if I don't listen to certain channels, I don't want to pay for them. If my bottom line goes down, even if the per-channel cost goes up, so be it. I'm still not paying as much per month as I was when I was paying for channels I wasn't listening to.

And I believe the XM-Sirius survey DID mention that a new receiver was needed to take advantage of a-la-carte programming plans... As to the "premium content" costing more under a-la-carte... I think most consumers are smart enough to realize that if they're paying more per month a-la-carte than they could be paying for a full package, that they could switch to the full package and save money that way instead.

$200 RADIO? Sorry Mr. back end this is not HD Radio Sirius holds down the price of Radios that is the way to get new subs.

gawd... the NAB is right .. too bad they sound like a bunch of whiny 2nd graders.

Man, where do you get all of these great pictures of Rehr?

I want to step on this guys head...and yea where does he get a 200 dollar pricetag from?

Good point, I wonder where the NAB got the $200 figure?

Talk about being disingenuous...

the NAB response wasnt "loaded"????

Personally I think merging would make things worse for subscribers because the companies would no longer have to stay lean and mean to fend off their competitor. In my area we now have a state sanctioned cable monopoly. Since its inception my price for service has gone up considerably even though I have cancelled all the premium services, channels and equipment I had been using.

As far as pricing, if the XM and Sirius websites are correct - the new receivers are already $120 to 170. Post merger 'fully capable' receivers will definitely not be less expensive than the current offerings, and will be more expensive not just due to ala carte issues - but the merging of the differing signals into one receiver. Sirius and XM have been working together to bring a product to market since 2005 and though it's been expected to be released in 2007 - it hasn't come out yet. Of course, whichever one you buy the price is likely on top of the stereo you need to plug it into. However there will likely be rebates or contract pricing - similar to cell phone plans - to lower the initial blow.

Since you mention HD Radio - it isn't expected to be much more expensive than most AM/FM radios and there's only the initial upfront cost. In fact - I just checked Circuit City and the HD car head unit there was $100 less than the one I have in my car.

MSRP on Satellite radio's is a joke. Has anyone paid MSRP for any of their units? My buddy just replaced his MyFi on eBay for $1 plus shipping. And you don't need to buy a new stereo to use the new Sirius/XM unit. I currently run my XM through my factory head unit. Aux Inputs on factory installed stereos are becoming standrd now with the popularity of the iPod.

As for your cheap HD unit, I assume you're talking about the JVC HDR1, consistently reveiewed as having a rather poor HD Receiver. I guess you get what you pay for.

MSRP on Satellite radio's is a joke. Has anyone paid MSRP for any of their units? My buddy just replaced his MyFi on eBay for $1 plus shipping. And you don't need to buy a new stereo to use the new Sirius/XM unit. I currently run my XM through my factory head unit. Aux Inputs on factory installed stereos are becoming standrd now with the popularity of the iPod.

As for your cheap HD unit, I assume you're talking about the JVC HDR1, consistently reveiewed as having a rather poor HD Receiver. I guess you get what you pay for.

So you check the MSRP for a satellite radio on XM and Sirius' website..... but you go to Circuit City to look at the price of an HD Radio unit? Why wouldn't you just check all three at CC's website? BECAUSE YOU'RE A SHILL FOR THE NAB!!!!!

Circuit City Prices:

JVC HD Radio Receiver (KD-HDR1) - $159.99 (normally $199.99)
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/JVC-HD-Radio-Receiver-KD-HDR1/sem/rpsm/oid/163674/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

SIRIUS Sportster 4 (SP4TK1) - $132.99 (normally $149 but is $102 after rebates)
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/SIRIUS-Sportster-4-SP4TK1/sem/rpsm/oid/152993/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

XM XpressR Satellite Receiver (XMCK20) - $99.99 ($79.99 after rebate)
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/XM-XpressR-Satellite-Receiver-XMCK20/sem/rpsm/oid/180511/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

STOP LYING FOR THE NAB!

I certainly didn't do an exhaustive search - I hit the top links after a google search on XM, Sirius and Circuit City HD Radio. You are correct though - I did mean that many people would need new stereo equipment - not entirely new stereos.

Work for the NAB? No - I work in the radio industry, but I'm an equal opportunity independent contractor - whether it's for Satellite or terrestrial I don't have a preference. However, after working with a few well known conglomorates, I've seen things from the inside. That experience proved to me just how good competition is for everyone. Big media conglomorates hurt listeners, musicians and talent equally.

What I have seen is that package and a la carte pricing drives up the bottom line price. Even if everyone pays only $ .10 - that's from 3 million subscribers. Cellphone and Cable have leveraged a la carte and package pricing quite well in their favor. Now satellite wants to follow suit.

Competition would keep prices low, drive down costs for the receivers, promote expanded playlists and competition for talent . A merger would remove the incentive for any growth in any of those areas.

Still think I work for the NAB? Think again. Anyone who dislikes the current terrestrial radio climate was probably silent when the FCC called for broadcast deregulation. I opposed it knowing it would lead to what everyone complains about - mass ownership of radio stations, constrained playlists and few talented people. It used to be that your studio, your music and your talent were your assets while your offices, antenna and vehicles were your expenses. Deregulation changed that for terrestrial radio and a monopoly for satellite will allow history to repeat itself.

I will be glad when this merger is approved so I don't have to see or hear this Jackass anymore-

Tim, Satellite radio has comeptition when merged. AM/FM/HD Radio is competition. Internet Radio is competition. iPods, mp3 players are comeptition. If Satellite radio raised it's prices to $30 a month, people would cancel their subscriptions and go elsewhere. The market is for audio entertainment. The method of delivery isn't what the consumer is interested in.

HAHA! Rich gets +2 points for that comment

StackPointer = Dennis Wharton?????

dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNNN

Tim = David Rehr....?

If thats teh case why dont they force sirius and XM to bind a contract stating they cannot raise prices for 5 years or so. Or they can only raise it a certain amount. Just to protect the consumer.

Also I doubt it will make THAT much of a price difference just to make new units capable of having both singals. Think it would be cheaper actually...

WAAAAAA!!!

Rehr needs a nipple!

NAB should be called the NATBA (North American Terristrial Broadcasters Asso.) Since they are cleary only siding with Terrestrial (mostly Clear Channel). Is Sirius not a broadcaster since they use Satellites? You know, many Terrestrial Radio Stations get their Syndicated shows from Satellite feeds.

Kind of hyprocritical, isn't it?

Dave - Actually they did lay out a pricing structure for the next few years after the proposed merger. If there's actually a way to guarantee that - it may actually be a good deal. However, promises are often made, but it's often difficult to insure they're kept. As far as signals - they're polar opposite technologies. It's really two receivers that have to fit in one box, memory to buffer the audio or save songs and software that makes them play nice.

The Dude - I'm not sure about Sirius, but XM is classified as a broadcaster. Due to their low angle they have repeaters in metro areas. That's part of why this deal is scary. The FCC originally said satellite and terrestrial broadcasters had to have separate ownership. They broke that rule to allow the repeaters. If the FCC breaks the second one to allow the two companies to merge,and this is a frightening thought, then there may be no guarantee that a big terrestrial company (like Clear Channel) can't swoop in and buy it all up if the merger drains the finances and investors back out. Clear Channel, by the way, has a good sized stake in XM already.

"Competition would keep prices low, drive down costs for the receivers, promote expanded playlists and competition for talent"

Tim - do they not have incentive to do all of these things after the merger? This is a subscription service, and the goal is to get more subscribers and retain the existing ones, regardless of where they come from. This is not a closed market where XM and Sirius are trying to steal subscribers from each other - they are both trying to get new subscribers from free radio and from the iPod fanbase. They will still have to do all of the things you mentioned if they want to get those subscribers. Whatever Mel promises really doesn't matter, because consumers will police this merger.

And to your comment about Clear Channel buying out satellite radio, that would be more of a possibility if the merger gets denied. If they deny the merger, they effectively say that terrestrial radio does not compete with satellite radio, and thus there would be no hurdle to Clear Channel gobbling up one of the satrad companies. That is the probably the worst thing that could happen to satellite radio.

Do you like monopolies?
Does competition restrain a monopolist's price-gouging?
Yes, that is what the alternatives to SatRad accomplish, these include but are not linited to terrestial, WiiMax, internet streaming, iPod/MP3, CDs, etc.

Should government reward two companies that routinely violate FCC rules with a monopoly?
The government does nothing when a terrestial radio conglomerate, like Clear Channel Communications, have market majorites or monopolies and do not even provide 'local' emergency information. This is especially true in the upper midwest.

Did you know you will have to buy a new radio that costs $200 or more to get the alleged benefits of a la carte programming?
Well, I see that Clear Channel is not giving away HD radios for the alleged benefits of HD programming. I see many HD units that exceed $200.00.
As far as SatRad, the newest generation of receivers is always at a premium, but over time, the cost comes down, even some Sirius receivers are free.

Did you know that Howard Stern and other 'talent' will cost consumers more – not less – under a la carte?
At least you can listen to them, if you want, on SatRad. This is a market-driven system, those that want this programming will pay for the programming. Cable TV Systems have been using this model for decades.

Did you know that under a la carte, the per-channel price of a merged XM-Sirius will rise by 40 percent to 188 percent?"
This is true, but it follows an invalid assumption; that is you purchase one service and buy everything a la carte. If you want that many from both, you 'purchase' a full subscription to both services and the per channel price increase is 0%.

These are just my opinions, your most likely will vary.

Bob