A comment was recently submitted to the FCC in response to Entravision's comments, disputing the concept that there is a binding rule preventing Sirius and XM from merging.
The reply comments, made by a self-described "citizen and consumer," were sent in response to Entravision's comments (the one where they nobly offered to take, and use, the other half of the satellite radio spectrum) and uses Entravision's own language against them:
According to Entravision, the use of “will” in the ‘Transfer” language section of the 1997 SDARS Report & Order restricts Commission discretion with respect to decisions in the SDARS merger context. If this were true, the Commission would be restricted from exercising discretion while conducting their review of the Consolidated Application and would be bound to the provisions of rule 25.118 which identifies the exception allowing a transfer to be authorized and completed. Yes, in fact, the 1997 SDARS Report & Order states:We note that DARS licensees, like other satellite licensees, will be subject to rule 25.118, which prohibits transfers or assignments of licenses except upon application to the Commission and upon a finding by the Commission that the public interest would be served thereby.
In other words, Entravision's interpretation of the rule were held true, then the FCC would have to recognize the authority of rule 25.118, and proceed forward.
The NAB's entire arguments against the satellite radio merger are largely based on the prohibitive language in the Transfer section of the 1997 license. But they ignore the language of rule 25.118.
The question is, does rule 25.118 override the entire ‘Transfer’ language section of the 1997 SDARS Report & Order? And since it appears to be internally conflicting, is the whole 'Transfer' section itself non-binding?
This seems like a pretty significant determination to me.
[Read Reply Comment (PDF)]
The problem is that everyone, including the managements of XM and Sirius, has previously acknowledged the rule and agreed to be bound by it. The argument, on technical grounds, that the rule is nonbinding, seems a bit superficial at this point.
when the companies formed, they had no idea how much the market would change--It was about starting up--now its about survival
You think when they broke up At&T that the baby bells didnt abide by the stature preventing them from merging--Now they are back together beacause times change as did the competition
So by acknowledging the rule and agreeing to the rule, we should be expecting rule 25.118 to be enforced and making StackPointer a bit more superficial at this point.
>>>> when the companies formed, they had no idea how much the market would change--It was about starting up--now its about survival
Mel has specifically said, time and again, it is NOT about "survival". If the companies maintain it isn't about survival, they damned well ought not be afforded any benefits attributable to that position. If Mel wants to revise his remarks, and admit that Sirius is in very deep trouble without a merger, that is a totally different thing.
>>>> You think when they broke up At&T that the baby bells didnt abide by the stature preventing them from merging--Now they are back together beacause times change as did the competition
The problem is that there has been no showing that the competitive environment has changed since the rule was made. Yes, we have Ipods, but they are fundamentally no different from CDs (i.e., recording devices). Terrestrial radio has not changed other than having added a few stations (which have not materially altered the competitive environment).
The strongest argument that the competitive environment has changed comes with the Ipod -- that is, the Ipod as a convenience is so much better than the CD (as a recording device), that it has, in fact, made recording devices more popular versus radio. The argument, while reasonable, doesn't hold water for one reason: Ipods today are packed with pirated music. People simply aren't filling Ipods with downloaded tracks, they are ripped -- ripped from their own CDs, ripped from friends' CDs, ripped from anywhere and everywhere. Ipod users are not having to pay for what they listen to. As recently as last year, it was estimated that the average Ipod has 20 tracks purchased from ITunes on it.
This is a temporary situation. Over time, Ipods will cease to be the free music devices they currently are, and paying for music will become necessary (if one wants to have any new music on his Ipod). At this point, you can say Ipods are "competing" with satellite radio. As of now, all you can say is that consumers are preferring a "free" service over a "pay" service.
Allowing XM and SIRI to form a monopoly due to some temporary market condition is stupid. As soon as the IPod's popularity fades, we'll be stuck with a sat radio monopoly, delivering us 20 minutes of ads an hour.
------------------
“You are dealing with two
companies — it would be
great if there was a monopoly,
but the second best thing to a
monopoly is a duopoly.”
— Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin (Ad Age, April 22, 2005)
I can't help but laugh at these statements:
"Pirated music is just a temporary market condition."
and
"As soon as the iPod's popularity fades"
You might want to fire your fortune teller.
>>> I can't help but laugh at these statements:
>>> "Pirated music is just a temporary market condition."
>>> "As soon as the iPod's popularity fades"
>>> You might want to fire your fortune teller.
It is idiotic to assume that music piracy is going to permitted into perpetuity. The fact is that previous efforts, although sloppy, have controlled some of more egregious violations (like p2p file sharing). As the CD business continues to dry up, the incidence of un-copyprotected music will, too. And as the cost of filling an 80GB Ipod rises to $15,000, perhaps beyond, the cost of a monthly sat radio subscription looks a hell of a lot more attractive.
Piracy has been going on for more than 3 decades now, and it's still getting worse. People will always be able to get free music from friends, if not from file-sharing programs. There is no way to stop it. And now there are DRM-free iTunes too. It is not going away in your lifetime or mine.
Here's the only way to end piracy:
Get search warrants for every mp3 player, computer, and CD case in the world.
I guess I'm an idiot for assuming that will never happen. Please forgive me Stack, almighty Lord of the Orbitcast comment forums.
I have an 80 gig iPod, and it's nearly filled (+70gb). I have never purchased a song off of iTunes.
Face the facts, the MAJORITY of people who have iPods didn't buy majority of their songs off of iTunes. They ripped them from their CDs, from their friends CDs and downloaded them off the net.
If you think p2p is going to just stop, you're walking around with blinders on. Jesus man, are you saying that warez don't exist either? What kind of shit are you smoking??
...But I thought Stackpointer said piracy will end?
Stack, we cant even throw illegal immigrants out of the country bc "it would be a hassle". What makes you think they will address this problem? Youre nuts buddy.
Think things out a little before you embarass yourself as you continually do with your "statements of undeniable fact".
>>> What makes you think they will address this problem?
Because it is a fundamentally simple task.
While piracy will never be totally eliminated (after all, there are thousands of tracks in existence today that cannot be "un-released"), for new music, it can be easily controlled over time.
For example, Microsoft has done a fantastic job of getting control of piracy over the 5-10 years, and will continue to improve until Windows is totally controlled. Today, it is exceedingly difficult to use a pirated copy of Windows for any extended period of time. MSFT is clearly moving the same direction with applications.
The demise of the CD also means the rise of copy protection. Software piracy (which is what music piracy is, of course) was a huge problem in the 90s. Today, not so much. In the future, even less. When people are downloading music (versus buying it on read-only devices), it is fairly easy to tie a digital copy to a device serial number, and once you do that, it becomes considerably more difficult to crack the software.
>>> Youre nuts buddy.
Maybe, but I can assure you that had the music industry handled things better, they could be much further along with controlling piracy today than they are. The first step is to eliminate all these un-controlled digital copies (that is, CDs) out there. Once that is done, controlling music piracy becomes a very simple task.
Yes, copy protection strategies can be cracked, but the number of people who will take the extra measures to commit the crime of stealing software is reduced with each iteration of copy protection improvements. Over time, it number of violations becomes so small as to be insignificant. We've seen this in one media form after the other, and it would have already been underway in the music industry but for the absolute incompetence of those running the show.
I can't believe this guy keeps talking, while everyone here is still laughing at his comments. Some people just lack that self-awareness gene.