They're not done yet.
The Carmel Group, commissioned by the NAB, has released yet another "ping-pong" chart to show that Sirius and XM directly compete with each other.
A follow-up to an earlier study by The Carmel Group, this features a more in-depth "ping-pong" chart than before with a huge list of competitive actions and reactions between the two companies.
The study asserts that "without this continued competition, consumers will not be able to obtain substitutable competition from competitors within the all-important vehicle; and importantly, choice, competitive pricing restraints and service will undoubtedly - and significantly - suffer."
And of course, NAB spokesperson Dennis Wharton had his pom-poms in hand with this to say:
"Contrasting XM and SIRIUS's history of competitive behavior with their track record of abusing FCC rules, the central question remains: Should two fierce competitors with a demonstrable record of FCC rule-breaking be rewarded with monopoly power? We -- along with consumer groups, minority organizations, antitrust experts and more than 80 members of Congress -- think the answer is no."
Following the April study release, I discovered an earlier article written by The Carmel Group that was not commissioned by the NAB which stated that satellite radio's "competition comes in the form of traditional analog AM & FM radio, as well as burgeoning services like MP3 players, terrestrial radio, and video- and Internet-to-the-vehicle." This was, in my opinion, a completely opposing position from the NAB-commissioned study. A point that caught the attention of the New York Post.
Now The Carmel Group is back with an extended "ping-pong" chart to prove that Sirius and XM did indeed compete with each other.
But, so what?
Proving that Sirius and XM compete(d) with each other has little to do with disproving that they are part of a broader relevant market. If two radio stations in a single market compete with each other, does that mean that they don't compete with other radio stations in the same market? Of course not.
Further, observing the competitive responses between those two radio stations won't give us any insight into the "continuing proliferation of outlets and rapid pace of technological change in the media marketplace" that the NAB is so worried about.
So all the "ping-pong" charts in the world are simply just exercises in futility.
[The Carmel Group Study (PDF) via AllAccess]
Thanks Derek!
If David Rehr were smart, he'd invite Sirius and XM to join the NAB, opting to promote RADIO LISTENING instead of participating in a silly pissing contest. If there is one thing terrestrial broadcasters are excellent at, it's silly pissing contests!
This is such a stupid comparison!
Of course both companies would try to compete if there were 2- I don't get what Rehr's idiot's are try to accomplish? If there was only 1 company then they have no need to compete. If there was 1 company than they could fuel there efforts together and concentrate on just taking care of continuing what they do best- providing entertainment that terresterial that can not and will not provide. Wake up NAB- The clock has not stopped, As a shareholder and subscriber the proxy votes went out and the decision is right around the corner.
>>> If there was only 1 company then they have no need to compete.
Exactly.
That's what capitalism is based on -- companies not having to compete, not having to outperform the other guy, just sitting back, hammering customers with monopoly pricing while relaxing comfortably with the knowledge there is no other service that can knock them off. That's what made this country great.
Just what the consumer needs -- one more mediocre business to purchase services from.
It is human nature -- people perform better when there is competition. I'm sure you do, Rich, I know my businesses do, and in my experience, every company I've been associated with has performed better when a competitor is hot on their tail.
Sat radio is no exception. Consumers will lose if the competition is abolished.
What a joke!!! So many of their comparisons make no sense. For example does anyone believe that XM came out with the $99 Roady because SIRIUS came out with the $2000 Antex multi-zone unit? I was glad to see though that XMs coverage of the Indianapolis 500 was in response to Rick Rudd being featured as the "Fans Choice" driver for the NASCAR audio.I thought XM did not respond to this move from SIRIUS. I just wonder why it took them 3 months to do it.
Damn Ryan, Where is the SUPER creepy picture of David Rehr on this one?
....Please God - let the merger happen so we can watch the firing of this guy.
What a joke!!! So many of their comparisons make no sense
And that is the way the NAB wants it because they know they cannot stop sat radio and they are only doing things that do nothing. They are making it look like they are doing something with the hope of fooling the members into thinking they are doing something.
The real reason is they know sat radio is big and they want sat radio as a member.
Everything the NAB has done is nothing that would stop the merger.
Rather than re-hashing what's been said, I'm more interested in the idea of the "Video and Internet-to-vehicle" comment. Talk about discontinuous change! How long from now will this take place in the widespread market, especially with more Wifi possibilities than ever? Has NAB talked about this at all?
>>> How long from now will this take place in the widespread market, especially with more Wifi possibilities than ever? Has NAB talked about this at all?
The market for video in vehicles is so limited as to make it a permanent loser. The only reason Sirius is doing it is in exchange for getting DCX to ramp up factory installs. They know it will never make money, and have all but said so.
Internet in the car is great and I use it on occasion to do customer support while riding in the car; but will be plagued for years with sparse coverage, horrible dropouts, and the fundamental problem, which is a lack of compelling content. Muscle, and others, who think Internet versions of terrestrial radio are going to be valid content providers are blind to the rather obvious fact that these media have no business model and therefore, are not even worthy of consideration.
Internet radio is going to die? Seriously Stack - sure, a lot of the small fries will get nailed by the new royalties, but it's ridiculous to say that it will eliminate the entire universe of internet radio. In the absolute worst case, a lot of sites will just have to switch to subscription models - just like satrad.
The thing that this guy fails to see is even though the merger would give the combined company 100% market share of the satalite radio insustry, but it would have plenty of compition. The obvious form is from territorial radio, but he fails to mention the rising popularity of HD Radio. Satalite radio is only one small portion of the bigger radio industry. People are going to still have choices when and if this merger pans out and satalite radio will always be in compition with someone.
The thing that this guy fails to see is even though the merger would give the combined company 100% market share of the satalite radio insustry, but it would have plenty of compition. The obvious form is from territorial radio, but he fails to mention the rising popularity of HD Radio. Satalite radio is only one small portion of the bigger radio industry. People are going to still have choices when and if this merger pans out and satalite radio will always be in compition with someone.
>>>>>>>>Internet radio is going to die? Seriously Stack - sure, a lot of the small fries will get nailed by the new royalties, but it's ridiculous to say that it will eliminate the entire universe of internet radio. In the absolute worst case, a lot of sites will just have to switch to subscription models - just like satrad.
Sure it is going to die, unless it can develop a business model that works. Not more than a handful (if that) of existing Internet radio stations would survive if the current RIAA rates were enforced.
Subscription? Only if they could band together and form a consortium to bill and collect the money, and perhaps offer something like ala carte as a group. I don't know; this is just so far out there it is silly to even discuss it.
Internet radio is not unlike the file-sharing phenomenon of several years ago -- everybody's doing it, but nobody paying for it. If/when a subscription model evolves, you may have a couple of small organizations that make it in the way that Napster has -- but largely, it is history.
Internet radio is not a business as it lacks a basic characteristic of a business, i.e., a model or scenario under which it might make money.
Internet radio disappearinging? Not a chance in the world. Check this out
http://www.arbitron.com/onlineradio/july_ratings_2007.htm
Internet radio disappearing? Not a chance in the world. Check this out
http://www.arbitron.com/onlineradio/july_ratings_2007.htm
Like I said Stack, the royalties will take out the small fries that don't have a business model - but there will still be tons of sites that can (or already do) monetize with commercials or subscriptions. How can you say with any confidence that internet radio doesn't have a business model compared to XM, which isn't even close to a profit after 6 years and 8+ million subscribers?
Subscription radio doesn't have to evolve - there are lots of them already making money because they don't have the infrastructure costs of satrad. And I can guarantee you that satrad doesn't get a break on music royalties compared to internet radio when the rates come up for renewal. If the rates take out the entire universe of internet radio, satellite radio won't be spared either.
Internet radio was what I listened to before I got XM. At the time it seemed great. No commercials, new music. Now? Unlistenable. There is nothing but garbage being played. Don't pay the artists, you have no compelling content. I'd rather listen to FM again.
Posted by Mortgage Refinance Home Improvement Loan Bad Credit Home:
Home Improvement Tips & Advice
...