(I've bolded a few lines below that, to me at least, are really key realizations/statements.) 

The proposed XM-Sirius merger will increase competition among providers of audio entertainment.

• AM/FM radio competes with satellite radio, as evidenced by long-standing opposition by terrestrial stations to satellite rivalry and to the proposed merger.
• If the terrestrial broadcasters genuinely believed that the merger would substantially increase price, they would support - not oppose - the merger, given that higher prices for satellite radio would translate into larger audiences and ad revenues for them.
• Since satellite radio first appeared on the scene, broadcasters have consistently attempted to restrain this new service to protect their interests at the expense of market competition.

Numerous independent investment analysts have concluded that the proposed merger will yield substantial efficiencies.

• The merger is expected to lift the financial prospects of satellite radio, lower capital financing costs, and foster economies of scale. Consensus estimates identify cost synergies of between $3 billion and $7 billion in net present value.
• These efficiencies will permit more aggressive investment in satellite systems and products and prompt competitive responses from terrestrial broadcasters and other rivals.

By any measure, satellite radio is dwarfed by terrestrial radio.

• The most common measure of economic size is revenue. Terrestrial broadcasters accounted for over $21 billion in sales in 2006, as compared to just $1.6 billion for satellite - less than 7% of overall radio broadcasting revenues.
• In market value, terrestrial stations have an estimated enterprise value, in aggregate, of about $82 billion as compared to about $9 billion for XM and Sirius combined.
• XM and Sirius compete in a complex and dynamic market. When iPods and other digital audio media are considered in addition to terrestrial broadcasting, satellite's revenue share falls to 4%.

Consumers will benefit from the proposed merger.

• By combining two small players in the audio entertainment market, the transaction will bring economic vitality to satellite radio. This, in turn, will sustain a wide range of valuable consumer options and spawn new services and products.
• Consumers benefit from lower-cost products and services, as well as wider program choice.  By combining operations, satellite operators seek to create greater scale economies in radio receivers, and to supply a wider array of popular programming to subscribers.

There is intense inter-modal competition among providers of audio entertainment.

• Consumers have a wide range of audio entertainment choices, including advertising-supported terrestrial broadcasting, subscription satellite radio, MP3 devices, and other emerging digital media. The fact that there are widely disparate pricing models among these platforms demonstrates that the competitive frontier is largely defined in terms of quality and convenience of service, rather than price.
• Taking the fluid nature of the market into account, it is clear that satellite radio broadcasters are not dominant players but compete with a host of other products and services.

Investment analysts see the merger as an attempt by satellite radio providers to drive costs down and to offer a more competitive product.

• Independent projections show an increase in subscriber growth and more programming choices -- a strongly pro-consumer outcome.
• A merger that reduces effective prices to subscribers and delivers billions of dollars worth of cost saving efficiencies is in the public interest under either a "consumer welfare" or a "total welfare" standard.