Shameful: Comparing Sirius-XM merger to others (again)

It is outrageous that there is still no up-down vote on this merger. Geez and they talk about national healthcare and all this other stuff, geez could you imagine waiting over a year for an urgent surgery. Politicians are full of it and should decide on whether to let this merger go through or not.

What would be truly shameful to me is if they were spending the last year focusing all of their time on this merger instead of something useful with taxpayer money. I wish Sirius and XM hadn't tried to merge in the first place. Both of them are lying and saying that they're fully funded (which Joe Clayton claimed back in 2003 if not earlier... how many thousands or millions of diluted shares ago? http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4047568/SIRIUS-Announces-Second-Quarter-2003.html )

It's just become a circus and nobody takes responsibility for their false statements.

Exxon-Mobil - More than one oil company left after merger.
Time Warner-AOL - More than one cable company left after merger.
Chevron-Texaco - More than one oil company left after merger.
Echostar-DirecTV - More than one satellite television company left after merger.
Google-Doubleclick - More than one web search engine company left after merger.
Sprint-Nextel - More than one telephone provider left after merger.
Whirlpool-Matag - More than one appliance manufacturer left after merger.
Whole Foods-Wild Oats - More than one oat provider? left over.

XM-Sirius merger (pending) - Satellite radio companies left over? 1

MONOPOLY

You kinda fudged a little there Frank on the Whole Foods- Wild Oats, didn't you? But of course, the correct answer is that there are still more supermarkets left over after that merger- just as there are still more radio companies, ipods, internet radio, etc, after this merger...

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ Not sure how you do your math.. But, I count about 345 days since the applications were submitted????? Somehow you believe that the fact that it took the two companies about a month to actually submit an application to the Regulators. Should somehow now be counted against the regulators??

You attempt to compare mergers that did not require rules changes to those that require rules changes.. Sorry, but anyone with even a little bit of experience with these issues understand the time lines involved in the NPRM procedures.. If there were no rules prohibiting the merger, then your comparisons would be fair. As in the case with Echostar/DirectTV merger. There was no rules prohibiting the two entities from merging.

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

This could be an indicator that this merger is doomed, and I am happy with that as it is the subs that lose out as in all mergers. I think it is sad the amount of tax payer money that has been wasted on this, but then again the government is great at pissing money away. I have noticed the music programming sucks on XM since this merger talk has happened. just let this thing die and XM can get back to hating SIRIUS.

the point was it has taken so long for a decision---any decision---and not only are these companies smaller in comparision but they are also being fought against by a very strong lobby that has given tens of thousands of dollars to most members in govt. The oils etc. didnt have as much to deal with--It just shows the corrupt govt we have today--Wish we could vote in term limits

uh Frank? You obviously didn't do your homework little boy.

Exxon-Mobil - Controls several oil regions exclusively = monopoly
Time Warner-AOL - The only cable company in many regions = monopoly
Chevron-Texaco - Regional exclusive control. Engaged in illegal trade with Iraq
Echostar-DirecTV - Was denied by DOJ/FCC, a decision that has given cable companies MORE POWER!!
Google-Doubleclick - Doubleclick is not a search engine YOU IDIOT. The question is about ad providers.
Sprint-Nextel - Who cares.
Whirlpool-Matag - Combined control over 70 percent of the washer/dryer market.
Whole Foods-Wild Oats - Was DENIED by the FTC, but then overturned in the courts. The government thought it was a monopoly.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL LITTLE BOY! You need to brush up on your history before playing with the grownups.

Frank the Frowner is spot on.

Now where is th elist of long waits in merger talks that ended up in being denied?

Worldpool-Maytag- yeah like they are the only company in the united states that have combined for over 70% of the market. It is not uncommon.
Exxon-Mobil - Define oil regions. Is this retail distribution or exploration/refining?
Also keep in mind Mobil is a HUGE lubricant producer and Exxon is not/was not. Look at the merged company now. Mobil is basicly non-existent in the retail sector but they are the market leader in the lubricant sector.
Chevron-Texaco - Again same as above what exactly is the market you are referring to?

What about Shell/Texaco?

We are not exaclty comparing apples to apple here.

Would any of these other mergers have created an unregulated monopoly in their respective industry?

Are you kidding me? ExxonMobil practically owns the Alaskan North Slope. Not just talking oil here, there's also artificial control of NATURAL GAS. And they have a major economic affect on the average person.

If Sirius/XM raise prices, PEOPLE WILL JUST STOP SUBSCRIBING. There's no contract. No US Economic impact. Nothing.

PCSTEL also seems to think that ALL these other companies didn't file a HSR like Sirius/XM did. holy shit you people are stupid

Quote - "GO BACK TO SCHOOL LITTLE BOY! You need to brush up on your history before playing with the grownups."

You obviously have a financial stake in this merger while as I do not. I do not want the meger for the simple fact that I like XM better than Sirius and Mel Karmazin will ruin my XM the way he did with regular radio. You could probably care less what gets broadcast after the merger.

Name one other commercial satellite radio provider....just one..

You're calling me an idiot when you can't understand that there will be one ONE satellite company after the proposed merger happens? You lose, sir.

Hey fuckface. I don't own shit in these companies, I'm an XM sub and just like you I'm a O&A fan. I just think that it's stupid to think these companies are a monopoly.

You're "SATELLITE" comparison is also pretty fucking moronic, BOY.

Do you think Iridium is a monopoly then? Because it has a fucking satellite constellation and AT&T, Verizon and Sprint don't? HOLY FUCK.

banff21- Was that directed at me. I wasn't sure what you meant by regions that is why I asked.

I think we're seeing what the shell game is here by the NAB and it's partners (Georgetown). They don't want there to be a decision either way. Let's face it, both Sirius & XM have suffered while this merger process has been going on, because prospective subscribers don't know what to do because of the pending merger. If the merger is approved or denied, Sirius & XM will be able to go about their business. And the NAB knows that. It seems to me the NAB is trying to keep this decision dragging on thinking the longer they can do that, the longer XM & Sirius will go without picking up subscribers, that it may get to the point neither company will be able continue. It's not been about getting the merger denied to the NAB; it's been about stalling the decision either way. Because we're seeing how much it's hurt satellite radio as a whole, and the NAB wants to see that continue.

Frank wins. He's spot on and banff21 you're grasping at anything to support your argument. If these two companies merge there will be one company left that controls the entire satellite market. That is called a monopoly. And as for raising prices, they could raise them 50 cents and no one would be canceling over it but the monopoly would profit enormously by the additional revenue, all at the expense of the consumer.

Just like the comments above, one can see how "divisive" this merger is...."how close of a call it is", and how hard to really definitively say, one-way or the other, how anti-trust, monopolistic the merger proposal might be.

I do have a personal stake in both Co.'s; I have been a Sirius investor/subscriber since 2003; I have ridden the roller-coaster, all the way up, and now down; After careful analysis and scrutiny, I find this merger an abosolute necessity for the furtherance of the industry, competition it would spawn, and the consumer benefits it would employ!

These are perilous economic times, and I think a merger at this stage would be prudent, and provide consumers with more choice than they now have; I also think you can approve the merger without infringing on concerns of the providers being a monopoly; Also, I hear commercials on regular broadcast radio in direct competition and comparison to satellite radio; How is such not "competative"? Buy a new Ford or GM vehicle, and most likely, on the same radio interface, you have an option for am/fm/sat! There's the true competition, am/fm and HD-radio!

another thought, no it wasn't sorry about that. you're right, this isn't really a good apples to apples comparison.

i'll get the regions but the alaskan north slope is a good example of regional control

What's shameful about the government taking a long time to make a decision about a questionable merger?

>>> competition it would spawn

Could you please explain how creating a monopoly "spawns" competition?

I mean to give the DOJ credit though, when I think of industries that can really take advantage of the consumer I think oil first, but a close second is Sat Radio (eyes rolling)...this is such a joke. The only positive is that I dont think they can deny it at this point. if this time was taken to just say "sorry, we are blocking the merger" then that would just be the most corrupt thing I ever saw. I imagine this time is being taken to hammer out the details and concessions, all though that is still no excuse for over a year..It should be any day...

"banff21 you're grasping at anything to support your argument"

WTF?
Let me make it easy for you, since you don't like the big words:

1. Iridium is a satellite phone company.
2. Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T are wireless phone companies.

Still following me?

Iridium is satellite based, while the others are terrestrial based. Iridium has a very small piece of market share compared to the other wireless providers. Iridium doesn't make much money, but the other wireless providers make a ton of money.

Still got it?

Is Iridium a monopoly? No. Is it a niche? Yes.

OK, so replace "Iridium" with "Sirius/XM" and replace "Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T" with "Clear Channel, CBS, Cox, Citadel, etc."

Do you understand now?

I guess the final evil would be for them to actually deny the merger. I think I would consider not renewing Sirius next year since my whole reason for getting Sat. radio was based on the assumption that I would be able to access both XM and Sirius.

The fact is, IT IS NOT A MONOPOLY when your main competition is FREEEEEE RADIO !!!!!!

Oh , And CLear Channel and all the other Radios companies state in their
10K's that they COMPETE with Satellite Radio.

For all of you who think this is a monopoly, here's a clue -- the delivery method doesn't make it impervious to competition.

By the way, this "satellite" thing is out of hand. The truth is that most people in big cities are listening to their "satellite" radio via ground-based repeaters.

Those towers are not terribly different from your FM/AM stations. Just because the satrads have some birds that actually get signal in more places doesn't make them some sort of isolated industry.

No one seems to have a problem calling it Satellite RADIO because it's a RADIO. Same as any AM - FM RADIO.

Just because satrad can reach BFE doesn't make it unique, either. So can any other small, portable device, like an iPod, or more recently, an iPhone.

If you are still screaming "monopoly", you are clearly missing the forest from the trees.

>>> No one seems to have a problem calling it Satellite RADIO because it's a RADIO.

What if, instead of "satellite radio", they had called it "satellite data delivery"? It bears much more resemblance to THAT than it does to terrestrial radio.

You can call it anything you want. But the fact remains that it is not in any significant way similar to terrestrial radio. I could care less what name you have for it. Terrestrial radio is fundamentally different in practically every respect --

- Terrestrial is ad-supported, satellite data delivery is subscriber-based

- Terrestrial is a limited, localized coverage area, satellite data delivery has a national footprint

- Terrestrial radio doesn't pay for its music content, satellite data delivery pays through the nose for everything

- Terrestrial radio doesn't pay OEMs to install their receivers in vehicles

- Terrestrial radio CANNOT offer certain content items (FNC, CNBC, CNN, MLB, NFL, etc.) because it is not economically feasible given the localized nature of the coverage, only satellite data delivery with a national audience can do this.

This list could go on.

Now, the list of similarities:

- They're both called "radio"
- They both enable you to receive live audio content in your vehicle (although, satellite data delivery is far more expansive, both in the content offerings and in the coverage footprint).

The argument is beyond ridiculous. These are two totally unrelated businesses.

Quote - "Hey fuckface. I don't own shit in these companies, I'm an XM sub and just like you I'm a O&A fan. I just think that it's stupid to think these companies are a monopoly.

You're "SATELLITE" comparison is also pretty fucking moronic, BOY.

Do you think Iridium is a monopoly then? Because it has a fucking satellite constellation and AT&T, Verizon and Sprint don't? HOLY FUCK."

I guess when you're getting beat you get flustered and result to throwing around the F word haphazardly.

Buy the way, your argument still stinks. Just looking at Wikipedia very quickly, it lists a few satellite telephone companies:

ACeS
BGAN
Globalstar
Inmarsat
Iridium
Thuraya

So I guess in answer to your question about Iridum, no, because if I wanted to go out and pick up a satellite phone, I don't have to go with just Iridum.

Nice Jimmy reference calling me "boy" to try to rile me up. Yeah, I'm an O and A fan too. Even if they weren't on XM, I'd still be against the merger. Also, learn how to differentiate between when to use "your" and when to use "you're". It makes you look like a silly goose. There's your Jimmy reference for you, you douchebag.

Actually, Mat, is is YOU who are missing the point. If a single broadcast tower falls down, all the radio stations on the AM and FM band do not go away and cease to broadcast. There are many towers owned by many different companies. Irrespective of their transmitter locations, if there are only two satellite radio providers and they merge to become one, that is a monopoly of satellite radio - by definition.

if they only added one word to the sector name, the whole monopoly arguement would be useless. Let's now call the sector " Satellite delivered radio." Radio being the main industry.

Stack, you have points, but they aren't good ones.

What does it matter if you have ad-based or subscriber-based revenue? That's like saying HBO isn't a cable channel. HBO is a totally different industry because they don't run commercials. Same with PBS. PBS isn't "television" because they aren't ad-based. That's just silly.

National footprint? It doesn't take long before you mention someone like "Rush Limbaugh" to know that your footprint argument is bogus. Are you suggesting that there is so much "local content" that anyone is going above and beyond the weekly "community oriented" 7am Sunday talk shows? Local talk radio will obviously be viable, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Stations that play music play from the same pool, and if anything were terribly local (KEXP Seattle comes to mind) there will hardly be a closing of a market by combining two national broadcasters.

Terrestrial radio SHOULD pay for its content, same as all the other outlets. They should be paying the artists that generate the content for which their business is relying on. The fact that they leech off of artists is pathetic, and is something that needs to change immediately. It's the black-eye of American property law.

Terrestrial radio doesn't pay for OEM installs for exactly the same reasons you pointed out above - they are ad-driven businesses that are free to access. Satrad pay for OEM installs because they have to derive subscription fees. This is self-evident; they do this because it generates revenue. Besides, what does it matter to Terrestrial? Every vehicle that has Satrad OEM also have AM-FM. That's called competition, comrade.

Finally, your concept of what Terrestrial cannot offer is a strawman. Local terrestrial stations COULD offer something like CNBC, CNN, etc., and in fact, some do. However, as local broadcasters, most have better business acumen than that. If you're worried about what terrestrial radio can or can't do, you're proving beyond any reason that indeed terrestrial radio is COMPETING against satrad.

If terrestrial radio is the pony express or telegraph operators, that creative destruction is a benefit to the economy, competition, and ultimately customers. If terrestrial radio is creative, and does what national radio cannot, they can continue to be successful. However, you make the case more clearly by example that they are competing.

A company combining must be anti-competitive and hurt consumers. That's the litmus test of a merger or acquisition, and XM-Sirius is far and away not harmful to customers. Simply because terrestrial radio is a dinosaur that only puts content on 38 minutes an hour doesn't make it something worth artificial protection. Far from it; terrestrial radio would benefit from re-invigorating the market with a real competitor. When that happens, all consumers win.

Frankly, Stack, if you're just going to be an apologist for terrestrial radio, maybe the Western Union telegram hasn't gotten to you yet that we're going to move on. Adapt or perish.

Mat is 100% correct and Frontmed's whole stance is based on dated arguments and ancient legislation.

I can already guess what Frontmed is going to say about it being anti-competitive and it will be the same points he has spouted and everyone can recite. He will:

-blurt out how they are the only two SATELLITE radio companies which is blatantly obvious
-claim they are not 100% identical substitutes with ipods, or terrestrial radio
-ignore Mat's comment about ad-based, and subscriber-based revenue
-ignore AMt's comment about the fact terrestrial doesn't pay music royalties (Does he think that satellite is choosing to pay for its music. Too bad they can't claim that they are providing exposure to those artists as well...)
-ignore the fact that AM/FM provides value to all customers who buy cars and is included because people expect it when buying a car (ie, no activation because its free and it is the incumbent when it comes to in-car audio). Coincidentally, if SDARS decided to offer free radio on say 10 channels on an interoperable receiver that were ad-supported, they would likely include it on more cars as a standard feature and that would remove his concerns about where the revenue comes from. (Public Knowledge 5% is similar to this)
-ignore the fact that terrestrial radio used to pay howard stern and still pays rush, O&A etc, so they do still pay for non-music content in the same way as SDARS
-ignore the pricing plans which are already released and show a clear benefit to consumers

To be honest, I can't even fathom why I felt compelled to write this post because Frontmed is so ridiculous and is merely grasping at whatever he can in the interests of whoever he represents because it surely is not the consumer...

Frank, you stink and I don't like you.

Also, I meant to say Stackpointer, but I said Frontmed because they spout the identical statements, apologies for confusion.

Also, stack mentioned that terrestrial is incapable of offering NFL, last time I checked you can hear NFL on local radio... Maybe not every team, but in reality, what is the difference between:
a) not having the choice to listen to a Patriots game because you have XM
b) not having the choice to listen to a Patriots game because you live in Seattle and they air Seahawks games but you are a Patriots fan

Either way, right now you do not have the choice of listening to a Patriots game in Seattle if you are in these demographics and it will cost you the subscription fee for Sirius in both scenarios, whereas a merged entity can provide the game to all of the XM fans at a discount to what he would pay now.

Last I checked, that was a good thing.

LUXURY.
There are no needs of the consumers covered through satellite radio that they can not cover by other means!
There are no antitrust issues for subscription based luxuries that compete with free.

>>> What does it matter if you have ad-based or subscriber-based revenue?

Because you cannot get commercial free music on ad-radio, for openers. But they are in two totally unrelated businesses. There is no similarity, whatsoever.

>>> That's like saying HBO isn't a cable channel.

No, it isn't. The point was made, correctly, that there are more fundamental DIFFERENCES between sat & terrestrial than there are similarities.

>>> National footprint? It doesn't take long before you mention someone like "Rush Limbaugh" to know that your footprint argument is bogus.

Limbaugh cannot be received in vast areas of the country. But that's a secondary issue -- the primary point is that if you want to listen to Limbaugh as you drive you are constantly having to re-tune to get it. You do not face this problem with anything on sat radio. And you can be guaranteed that the content you want is available on the same channels whether you're in Vegas or DC.

>>> Are you suggesting that there is so much "local content" that anyone is going above and beyond the weekly "community oriented" 7am Sunday talk shows?

No, I didn't intend to suggest that.

>> Local talk radio will obviously be viable, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

I have made no statement about that at all.

>>>> Stations that play music play from the same pool

But 1/3 of every hour is commercials, which fundamentally alters the listening experience, and thus makes it indisputably different.

>>>> Terrestrial radio SHOULD pay for its content, same as all the other outlets.

Perhaps, but they don't. Another fundamental difference between the two businesses and one that means you cannot consider them as "substitutes" for one another, since it implies a totally different business model (ad-supported vs. subscriber).

>>> Terrestrial radio doesn't pay for OEM installs for exactly the same reasons you pointed out above - they are ad-driven businesses that are free to access.

Right. Totally different line of business. Competition? Sure. But not a "substitute".

>>> Local terrestrial stations COULD offer something like CNBC, CNN, etc., and in fact, some do.

No, they can't and they don't, certainly not in a significant way. The reason is that this content is not economically feasible for terrestrial radio to offer. For example, C-SPAN is not available on terrestrial (except for one station in DC) because it would have to be ad-supported. Fox News Channel is available on satellite radio (at massive cost for Xm and SIRI) and it is not economically feasible to broadcast this material on terrestrial radio over the vast majority of the country. The same is true of offering ALL MLB or NFL games.

The rather obvious truth is that terrestrial radio is NOT a substitute for satellite radio, and could not conceivably be due to the differences in the economics.

>>>> If you're worried about what terrestrial radio can or can't do, you're proving beyond any reason that indeed terrestrial radio is COMPETING against satrad.

I could care less what terrestrial does. My point is that it isn't the same, or even remotely similar, to satellite radio.

>>> A company combining must be anti-competitive and hurt consumers. That's the litmus test of a merger or acquisition, and XM-Sirius is far and away not harmful to customers.

There is no doubt, when you combine the only two firms in a single industry, that it is anti-competitive. It is implicit that it will hurt consumers. You, or Mel, saying it won't hurt consumers simply doesn't make it true. It WILL hurt consumers, because it will allow them to raise prices and cut services, which is precisely what they are planning to do -- and anyone who has followed the sat radio business over the last several years would have to be blind not to know that.

>>> Frankly, Stack, if you're just going to be an apologist for terrestrial radio

I'd be the last person to be an apologist for terrestrial radio -- I haven't listened to it more than an hour total since December, 2001. And there are many just like me, and we are all a testament to the fact that there are fundamental differences between the two that make one more desirable than the other.

>>> Also, stack mentioned that terrestrial is incapable of offering NFL, last time I checked you can hear NFL on local radio... Maybe not every team

Exactly. Case closed.

Mat:

I don't mean to answer for RayBob, but he's points are quite valid. He correctly points out that terrestrial and SDARS operate in two different unique markets. Terrestrial using ad revenue based models, and SDARS being subscriber based. These clearly differentiate the two product offerings. SDARS clearly trumpets this differential in it's marketing campaigns. You can not claim that it does not provide a market differentiation simply because you don't think it matters. HBO is a cable channel. It provides unique original programming that subscribers pay a fee to watch. Terrestrial Television does not have access, or is prevented by decency laws in many cases to provide access to this programming by virtue of the terms of their licenses. Just as Terrestrial Radio has strict limitations on the content they are able to provide via on-air broadcasts. SDARS has no such limitations.

Your counterpoint on the National Footprint is disingenuous. Pointing to a single program or series of programs that may be provided on a near national basis on a hodge podge of mostly AM stations across the country is not a valid concept. What about the programming on the other 270 some odd channels on XM/SIRI combined?

I hate to break the bad new to you.. But, Terrestrial Commercial Radio Stations DO PAY LICENSING RIGHTS.

You go to great lengths to attempt to "sell the concept" that Terrestrial and Satellite radio are competitors. I don't think you really need to "sell" this concept, as few are debating the Satellite Radio is competition to Terrestrial Radio.

From the Commissions own 1995 Letter
June 15, 1995
FCC PROPOSES RULES AND POLICIES FOR DIGITAL
AUDIO RADIO SATELLITE SERVICE
(IB DOCKET NO. 95-91; GEN DOCKET NO. 90-357)

"The Commission also stated that DARS will both compete
with and complement traditional local AM and FM radio services
and requested comment on the impact of the DARS proposals upon
these broadcasters and the listening public."

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

"You go to great lengths to attempt to "sell the concept" that Terrestrial and Satellite radio are competitors. I don't think you really need to "sell" this concept, as few are debating the Satellite Radio is competition to Terrestrial Radio."

Then I don't need to make any further argument. Monopolies are monopolies, and by strict definition, even Mel would say that SatRad would enter into a strict monopoly. That's not something terribly unusual in media.

But I think it's disingenuous to argue that the merger should be blocked because it's a monopoly. It should be blocked if it's anti-competitive, and clearly, blindingly, we all agree that this is not the case.

Quote "Frank, you stink and I don't like you."

That made me laugh!

>Then I don't need to make any further argument.

You're right.. You don't.. Because you appear to be arguing about something that is already understood. You just need to convince the regulators that DARS is not a definitive market definition, but is more so part of the overall Audio Entertainment Market. Good Luck on that one.

>But I think it's disingenuous to argue that the merger should be blocked because it's a monopoly>

It is not a monopoly in the market definition that the SDAR proponents attempt to classify it in. But, under it's current market definition.. It would be a monopoly. That is why both companies agreed to be bound by the "no single company control" rule. It will be however, a spectrum monopoly regardless. Like I have said from the beginning. If the two companies simply want to combine operations. Then there is no reason to deny the merger. If they want to take their spectrum licenses with them. Then there will be no merger because there will be a definite spectrum monopoly.

And so it goes
PCSTEL

Gee, If the FCC/ DOJ don't want a monopoly, just assign one of the licenses to another, company.

Gee, If the FCC/ DOJ don't want a monopoly, just assign one of the licenses to another, company.

Posted by: mitchman79 | March 4, 2008 9:03 AM

-----------------
So who get thier radios turned off, XM or Sirius.

PS- spelling Nazi, did I use the correct form of "thier"

>>> But I think it's disingenuous to argue that the merger should be blocked because it's a monopoly.

The relevant considerations before the DOJ today are so much more complex than any of us here (unless there are antitrust attorneys posting here) understand. And I'll be the first to say I don't know that much about it. I just know a monopoly when I see one.

For those who are interested enough to educate themselves about what the criteria are for allowing this merger, the following document is highly recommended:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Biggio070228.pdf

This is an independent experts commentary on the process, concise and relevant, and IMO, unbiased. This document clearly illustrates just how high the hurdle SHOULD be at DOJ.

I think everyone is missing the point. The point is that the government has not voted on the issue yet. Whether they vote yes or no, they need to take some type of action. The decision seems pretty simple to me, and one that I concluded in about 60 days.

More gems from Stack...

>>> What does it matter if you have ad-based or subscriber-based revenue?
Stack: Because you cannot get commercial free music on ad-radio, for openers. But they are in two totally unrelated businesses. There is no similarity, whatsoever.

Actually there is similarity Stack, they both play music, they are founded on playing music, they both have talk radio, they both have stations that they feel appeal to the listener (this can be debated for terrestrial because they are crap and they offer the same shti all over)... It's their choice to fill their playlists with commercials, they do it to make a thing called money.

>>> That's like saying HBO isn't a cable channel.
Stack:No, it isn't. The point was made, correctly, that there are more fundamental DIFFERENCES between sat & terrestrial than there are similarities.

Way to ignore his point Stack, I'm sure if you don't understand he'd be willing to explain it again.

>>when you combine the only two firms in a single industry, that it is anti-competitive.

Two firms with 1 delivery method, or two firms in one part of the market.

>>It WILL hurt consumers, because it will allow them to raise prices and cut services, which is precisely what they are planning to do -- and anyone who has followed the sat radio business over the last several years would have to be blind not to know that.

Stack, don't be a fricken moron... maybe they want to reach a critical amount of subscribers to make their business model work (the one where we pay for music and are therefore required to ask for subsriptions because ad revenue would not be enough). Music royalties were the single biggest increase on their expense statements so before you go rambling about sirius and XM not being effective management and not knowing to cut costs you should stop yourself... but of course you knew that and would not ever mention it.

You know what Stack, I think iPhone is anticompetitive because nothing offers 100% the same services and it is only offered on AT&T. AT&T has a monopoly on iPhones.

Tell me why I'm wrong with your definition of the: mobile phone-audio/video-internet-email device because surely your definition of the market the iPhone is in is that narrow...

Satellite radio is in competition with terrestrial radio. This statement was made by a terrestrial radio company (ABC Radio) when they were merged with Citadel. It was in the information distributed to shareholders regarding the merger under a section detailing their competition.

It sounds like the NAB needs to get their members in line. On one hand you have the NAB stating that a merger would be a monopoly since there is no competition. On the other hand, you have members represented by the NAB stating that satellite radio is competition. Which one is it?

>>> AT&T has a monopoly on iPhones.

While I disagree with your characterization, there is no prohibition against having a monopoly because you innovated.

Hahahaha. Stack you crack me up, you argue for the sake of it. Who pays you for real? I man you have time to argue all day in the interest of terrestrial radio and against the interests of people like me who just want cheaper sat rad and more options.

All I want is the option to pick 50 stations and pay 6.99....

They innovated a deal to have only one part of a larger market controlled by a single entity.

>You know what Stack, I think iPhone is anticompetitive because nothing offers 100% the same services and it is only offered on AT&T. AT&T has a monopoly on iPhones.

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ I have an IPhone and I use TMobile??

Apple Store on-line has them for sale to anyone that wants to pony up $400 dollars.

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

I think its funny how some of the arguments that are being made FOR the merger could also have been made in the echostar/directv merger and we all know how that ended.

Satellite tv competes with over the air tv and cable so they should be allowed to merge. Anywhere you go in the US you can get a form of TV so they should be allowed to merge. DVDs and VHS exist that they comptete with, so they should be allowed to merge. If somebody lives in the middle of nowhere with barely any television signal, they can still opt out of satelltie tv if prices are raised, so the new company wouldnt do that.

I think the most important thing to look at is that there is no SINGLE device out there that provides direct competition to a merged company. You can bundle as many different devices into a single idea you come up with but realistically nobody is going to use 7 diffenent things to get what one satellite radio provides if they dont have to.

Of course, maybe you believe that the echostar/directv merge should have gone through so what I just wrote means nothing to you.

The IPhone is actually a pretty good example though.. Let's use it to provide a similar example. Now the IPhone has several unique features that work only through the ATT Network. But, many of it's features work via Localized Wi-Fi Networks, but not all of them.

WiFi networks do not provide the ambiguity of near seamless nationwide coverage like that of ATT's GPRS/EDGE network. And using ATT's network provides certain feature sets that can not be engaged on a Localized Wi-Fi network. Now, does ATT's network Compete with Localized WiFi hotspots? Sure it does. Does the Localized Coffee Shop WiFi hotspot compete with ATT's nationwide network. Not really. You see.. The Coffee Shop WiFi hotspot only provides service in a localized area, when you travel outside the local area. You don't have service unless you happen across another localized WiFi hotspot. In addition, the WiFi service does not provide a complete feature set like ATT provides, Now, what if Verizon, Sprint, ATT, and TMobile got together and asked the FCC to let them merge into one company. They could claim that the competitive arena has changed so drastically in the last ten years that allowing them all to merge would not create a monopoly because there is Skype, Cable Phone Service, Vonage, WiFi, and many other emerging technologies coming on-line in the next 5 years. To most, this sounds preposterous. The FCC should allow all of the Cell Phone companies merge all of the spectrum into one company simply because there are very localized FREE Wi Fi services available in some locations? Even those FREE localized WiFi services don't provide a complete menu of the services provided by the single merged company. The combined company could claim Tens of Billions of dollars in synergies. Better service and of course.. Lower Prices.. Would allowing all of the CMRS providers to merge into a singe entity be in the public interest? Simply because they claim they have to compete against FREE Localized WiFi Ports, Vonage, and Skype? What about the next company that comes up with an IPhone killer. Now there would only be one company to sell the device to. What happens if the single entity decides it doesn't want the device on their network? Then there are no options for the new device, because there is no competing company that can offer it to the consumer. The Consumer Loses. Of course.. The Shareholders and those with an agenda would have all kinds of reasons as to why it would be such a great idea, but in reality. The Consumer would Lose.

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

No single device can compete with iPhone either...

TV is different because there are regions where no cable is available. Some terrestrial radio is available everywhere, internet is available everywhere...

Dvd/vhs is different than ipod because you cannot access TV programs from other portable sources. I cannot watch a new episode of Heroes on DVD, whereas I can listen to the new White Stripes anywhere whether its on radio or ipod. Further, if it is not currently on terrestrial radio that also does not mean it will be on satellite radio either.

PCS TEL:

I agree that the mobile phone market and the audio market are both similar in that they are changing greatly and there are more and more alternatives all the time. Skype and wifi are great examples and they are similar to free service from terrestrial, wifi though is not available everywhere but you are right that there are many more emerging competitors.

My point is that iPhone on one network is not considered a monopoly even though it offers services on one device that nobody else can offer and it is only available through one network. No single device is a substitute, but it has reasonable competitors.

PCS TEL:

One other thing about your point is that you are talking about all the incumbent technologies (verizon, at&T, etc) merging so they would control >>90% of the market. We are talking about the emerging technology merging which controls ~4% of the market.

A better comparison would be if wifi as a whole controlled 4% of the market starting placing repeaters all over the country and tried to merge to provide an alternative to the incumbents.

To everyone who believes there are no other monopoly's . What's Tivo? A premium payed service? So, is satellite radio. Why can't they have a monopoly

>One other thing about your point is that you are talking about all the incumbent technologies (verizon, at&T, etc) merging so they would control >>90% of the market. We are talking about the emerging technology merging which controls ~4% of the market.

No, they would control 100% of the CMRS spectrum. They would have a monopoly in the CMRS arena. Just as XM/SIRI would hold a 100% spectrum monopoly on DARS spectrum and services.

Just imagine what things would look like today if the FCC had allowed a merger to monopoly for Cellular Operators in the early 90's when Cell Phones were only 4% or the market??

The important thing to remember here is this. Both companies claim to champion the concept of greater competition. Yet, these same companies have worked in unison to prevent competition for the last 4 years. Working against rules written by the FCC to ensure vibrant competition between the two companies. Both companies refused to manufacture and market multi-mode receivers that would have allowed subscribers to subscriber to one or both services in a single unit. These same receivers would have allowed users to move from one service to another depending on content preferences and personal tastes.

Both companies explained that the reason that neither company made these multi-mode receivers available on a commercial basis was that no one was interested in these systems. Yet, they then turn around and parade thousands of comments from "subscribers" chanting that this multi-mode reception is exactly what they want. A service which allows them to receive content offered by both companies and a single unit.

A two years ago.. No one wanted it. But, suddenly after the merger announcement. Everyone wants it.

Now, both companies ask to be rewarded for previous rules violations regarding the inter-operable receiver mandate by asking for a 100% DARS spectrum monopoly in order to provide what would have already been largely available with an interoperable receiver.

In most cases, Being rewarded for past rules violations only sets up the expectation for future rewards for future rules violations.

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

I can download and watch new episodes of Heros or LOST from iTunes the day of the airing. I can go to ABC.com and watch any episode of lost from the past 4 seasons if I want to. So all the cable companies should be allowed to merge now right? they compete with iTunes.

Also, take for example my parents beach house on the chesapeake bay. There is only satellite tv down there, dial-up (aside from AOL) has only been there a few years. A wireless internet tower was just put in, but the treeline blocks it from our use, so thats out. only a handful of FM stations are available to listen to during the day, most of which do not play my kind of music/talk/sports.

When I go down there the first thing I pack up is my XM inno because it provides me with what much of the missing media in the area. If i want baseball, rock, indie, talk, jazz, etc, i need my xm or its nothing. I have my iPod with me most of the time just in case I have the urge to listen to something specific, otherwise it is XM. It is not a substitute, never will be.

Also, if you have never used satellite radio while out on a boat fishing then you really dont understand how important it can be.

the iphone is just a smart phone. there are many smart phones on the market for all carriers. in fact, the iphone really isn't the best one out there, just the "coolest". So no monopoly on iphone, not to mention that you can indeed use it on another network if you really must. Need an iphone? try a treo, much better product.

I was just trying to illustrate a point that there are other products out there without a 100% subsititute and I think my point is getting lost with this whole iphone thing. I was just trying to draw parralels.

I did acknowledge they are not the same and neither are the cable companies, and no they should not be all allowed to merge because the video market is not the same as the audio market.

PCS TEL:

You are right that they would control 100% of the CMRS but they would also control >90% of the overall cell phone market.

in the sat rad case they would be 100% of the SDARS spectrum and

>>A wireless internet tower was just put in, but the treeline blocks it from our use, so thats out. only a handful of FM stations are available to listen to during the day, most of which do not play my kind of music/talk/sports.
>>Also, if you have never used satellite radio while out on a boat fishing then you really dont understand how important it can be.

You are underserved because terrestrial is not forced to realistically compete! Why don't people understand that the reason why you aren't served by terrestrial is because they aren't forced to fight for you ear.

>>Just imagine what things would look like today if the FCC had allowed a merger to monopoly for Cellular Operators in the early 90's when Cell Phones were only 4% or the market??

Were there reasonable alternatives to cell phones? Maybe phone booths? Is there an alternative to sat rad? Yes, including the cellphones that we are talkign about.

Also, how are you going to suffer with cheaper options? and more to choose from?

Sorry I posted that last anonymous coward one.

My point above that was cut off

>>Just imagine what things would look like today if the FCC had allowed a merger to monopoly for Cellular Operators in the early 90's when Cell Phones were only 4% or the market??

PCS TEL:

You are right that they would control 100% of the CMRS but they would also control >90% of the overall cell phone market. Also that is >90% of the MOBILE phone market. The 4% you were talking about before was the whole telephone market (which is completely irrelevant because it is not available to you when you are mobile)

In the sat rad case they would be 100% of the SDARS spectrum and 4% of the mobile audio market.

Also, going back to something Stack said:

>>> Also, stack mentioned that terrestrial is incapable of offering NFL, last time I checked you can hear NFL on local radio... Maybe not every team
Stack: Exactly. Case closed.

Sirius has an unlawful monopoly on NFL right now? By your logic yes, because they are the only ones who can offer all games nationwide.

>You are right that they would control 100% of the CMRS but they would also control >90% of the overall cell phone market.

I take it you last sentence was going to say "in the sat rad case they would be 100% of the SDARS spectrum and 4% of the Audio Entertainment Market"?

But, you have fallen into your own trap. You have expanded the market definition for DARS into the entire Audio Entertainment market, but you have constrained the CMRS example into Cellular Communications. Why not expand it into the total Telecommunications Market. Fiber, Landline, etc. The market would be much less than the 90% that you use as a comparable.

It is like I wrote one time.

Using expanded market definitions. We could also make the case for a merger between Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co. Now on the face of it. Allowing the two companies that control 90% of the worlds "Carbonated Beverage Market" seems laughable. But, PepsiCo and Coke could claim that they are not in the "Carbonated Beverage Market"... But more correctly they compete in the "Non-Alcoholic Liquid Refreshment Market. And their biggest competitor is FREE WATER available at most restaurants and municipal taps. They could also claim that the competitive landscape has changed so drastically in the last 10 years. After all, one only has to walk into their neighborhood 7-11 to see the vast variety of liquid refreshments available that also compete against the "Carbonated Beverages". Energy Drinks like Red Bull, Monster, etc. Sports Drinks like Gatorade, Powerade, etc. Flavored Teas like Snapple, Botttled Waters, Coffee Drinks like Starbucks, Milk, Coffees that are available in many different flavor combinations. All of these compete with the "Carbonated Beverages". But, let's not stop there. But why stop there.. Why not claim you compete in the entire "Liquid Refreshment Market" which would include Beer, Wine, and Mixed Drinks.

When you expand the product definition that large. Then there is little argument that Coke and Pepsi have a much smaller penetration into the overall competitive "Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic Liquid Refreshment Market". So why not let them merge?? They could claim all sorts of "Consumer Benefits". For instance. Many people prefer Coke-a-cola, yet chose Diet Pepsi for their low calorie drink of choice. A merger would allow the companies to package a sixer of Coke and a sixer of Diet Pepsi in a single easy to carry home 12 Pack. Now that is Pro-Consumer....

The consumer would no longer be required to purchase a six packs of each, and we know that would save the consumer money.

More convenience, More choices, and lower prices.. Hard to argue with those points..

But, would it really be in the public's best interest to allow a merger of the two??

If we expand he market definitions wide enough, then even a merger between Coke and PepsiCo seems logical. Each of their competitors are substitutes, but not "direct substitutes" for the Carbonated Beverage market, and of course, they would claim that their pricing would be held in check because..... After all.. They have to compete against their biggest competitor....FREE WATER.....

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

>>But, you have fallen into your own trap. You have expanded the market definition for DARS into the entire Audio Entertainment market, but you have constrained the CMRS example into Cellular Communications. Why not expand it into the total Telecommunications Market. Fiber, Landline, etc. The market would be much less than the 90% that you use as a comparable.

This is not my own trap... It is as simple as this:

Cell phones can be used when you are mobile, home phones cannot.

Sat rad, ipods, cellphone music, AM and FM all work when you are mobile.

Also, your coke/pepsi example is not even close to similar because is "free water" the same as coke? no, it is not the same product.

Is Led Zep the same on Sirius as it is on an ipod as it is on am/fm? yes.

>Cell phones can be used when you are mobile, home phones cannot.

Yes, they CAN BE used when you are mobile, they also can be used why you are at home.

Sirius and XM claim they compete with Internet Radio via Broadband Internet Connections which are typically non-mobile connections.

Again, you attempt to craft the Market Definitions to meet a specific agenda when comparisons are made.

Same goes for coke and pepsi. Is Free Water a "direct substitute" for Coke or Pepsi. No, but they are "substitutes" if the Market Definition is expanded. Is Terrestrial Radio a "Direct Substitute" for DARS?? No, but it is a "substitute" with widened Market Definitions. Claiming that one, "FREE Terrestrial Radio", is competition, but, "FREE WATER", is not, is simply a matter of manipulating Market Definitions to arrive at a desired conclusion.

Almost any product or service can be manipulated to be a competitor if Market Definitions are expanded.

>Is Led Zep the same on Sirius as it is on an ipod as it is on am/fm? yes.

Maybe, but here is what XM says about XM Led.

XM LED: The Led Zeppelin Channel will also feature the band’s complete audio catalog, interviews with band members and other content that celebrates all that is Led Zeppelin.

Do you have that on your IPOD?

If it's the same that is available on your IPOD.. Why do you pay $12 a month for a subscription?

And so it goes,
PCSTEL

>>Yes, they CAN BE used when you are mobile, they also can be used why you are at home.

What is the PRIMARY USE off a cellular phone? Don't be a retard.

>>Sirius and XM claim they compete with Internet Radio via Broadband Internet Connections which are typically non-mobile connections.

They do this to show the audio landscape, they are obviously not the primary competitor. Other internet radio does compete with Sirius and XM internet radio directly.

>>XM LED: The Led Zeppelin Channel will also feature the band’s complete audio catalog, interviews with band members and other content that celebrates all