NAB President and CEO David Rehr is once again writing a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin about the Sirius-XM merger. This time he's pulling out the old "sow's ear" adage to prove his point.
"...Sirius and XM announced a series of pledges designed to dress up the proposed merger-to-monopoly as a benefit to the public. But you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear," Rehr wrote.
Undoubtedly this is language that will sway Martin in the NAB's favor. If that doesn't cut it, then the remaining scathing 5-page letter regurgitating the same old argument should do the trick. The harder the NAB tries to claim that satellite radio doesn't compete with terrestrial, the more it appears that they in fact do. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush don't you think Mr. Rehr?
Now, I don't see calling the first-ever A La Carte offering a "shameless attempt to curry the favor of government regulators," as rubbing Kevin Martin the right way. Martin, afterall, has had A La Carte pricing on his agenda from the very beginning - and this could set precedence for the rest of the media industry. Don't burn your bridges Mr. Rehr, because you can't get blood out of a turnip.
On a personal note, a part of the letter that I truly enjoyed was when David Rehr brought up the "nattering voices of self-interested Wall Street analysts and online bloggers."
Come on Mr. Rehr, was that necessary? I'm hurt! Afterall, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I can tell you from self-interested experience, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade! Don't worry, your comments are like water off a duck's back.
[Read the full letter (PDF)]
Is David Rehr just the secret identity of renown superhero, ClicheMan?
Well down, Ryan...hardly any nattering in this post!! ;-)
I'm such a nattering blogger. :)
Ah, I wish I had more students like Ryan in my English classes. Great writing!
A++++++++++ WOULD READ BLOG ENTRY AGAIN
What liaco said.
hahaha wow, that was an awesome article, nice work
That was the most hilarious post you've written in a long time. Your writing is exactly why I love this site Ryan. Great job you nattering blogger!
Was David Rehr the lead singer of the New York Dolls?
Yeah, you self-interested jerk, stop exposing their hypocrisy! The companies NAB represents can't afford to spend any more of their payola cash bribing lawmakers to make things swing their way!
Great article. There's an irony to claiming that bloggers are the self-interested ones, while trying to separate terrestrial and SatRad.
On the face of it, the arguments put up by the NAB are all blatantly false.
If a merged satellite radio company would be bad for consumers, the NAB wouldn't be opposed to it!. In fact, they'd welcome it. Why? The best thing the NAB could do is sit on their hands and let it happen, because at the end of it all, nobody would pay $20 a month for radio, Sirius/XM would be bankrupt, and some NAB member would simply buy up the satellites and use them to further their own goals of world domination.
1. The NAB has one group's interest at heart: their own members. That's as it should be; that's what the NAB is for.
2. The NAB's assertion is that a Satellite Radio Merger would be bad for the public. Prices would go up; they won't offer better programming.
3. The NAB has been opposed to ANY innovation in the satellite radio market, repeatedly speaking out against satellite radio.
4. Experiments have recently taken place in the area of subscription radio and TV using existing infrastructure (delivering premium content via the subchannels on HDTV signals or HD radio channels.)
Let's look at these items in more detail:
1. If the NAB is concerned for the welfare of their stations, then they have an interest in reducing competition in their market. This is, in fact, what they are attempting to do here.
2. If the satellite radio merger was bad for business, higher prices would drive customers back in to the arms of the terrestrial radio stations!
3. Competition is the buzzword here, and apparently the NAB fears Sirius and XM's competition with NAB members.
4. Until now, terrestrial radio has always been free, but what if the FCC or Congress approved a subscription market using terrestrial radio stations as the way to deliver the content? A nationwide subscription network based on broadcasts from existing radio towers (remember that HD TV is going to free a lot of spectrum for other users) would directly compete with satellite radio. Remember... there's a radio station within reach of nearly everywhere in the country; link those together and you have a network that's just as XM or Sirius's, and without the line of sight issues.
We can only conclude that the NAB's vehement opposition to the merger means one thing: that that this new company will even more effectively compete with terrestrial radio, reducing terrestrial's revenue.
i agree whole heartedly with mr. rehr. it'll be a month of sundays before i put all my eggs in the xm/sirius merger basket. why, i'd be a monkey's uncle if i pulled the wool over my own eyes and climbed on board this albatross around the neck of terrestrial radio. i don't want to split hairs or mince words, but this here merger is just dirty pool, see? what's good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander, if you follow me.
yech. what a douche this guy is.
to funny
"but Daddy, i want an ompa-lumpa" They are getting desperate/shrill
now if somebody from sirius or xmsr could just email "GWB" this link it would clear up all the issues
You're a good and intelligent man, Ryan. Keep up the good work.
Hey Ryan, .... does the letter mean that Mr Rehr reads Orbitcast?
I hope so! Unfourtunatly I can not post a picture of the local New Jersy Greeting used on highways around here.
Orbitcast is quoted in the FCC Merger Filing, on the SIRIUSmerger/XMmerger websites, and he made it to the New York Post by ripping apart the Carmel Group.
You betcha that the NAB is reading this site.
Great post Ryan, this by far my favorite blog. I read it everyday.
Has Mr. Rehr realises that the XM logo is buried in his cheeks?