In the FCC application for the merger of both satellite radio companies, XM-Sirius state that no existing Commission rules bar the one entity from buying the other.
This differs greatly from what we've all thought to be the case, particularly the "Transfers" section of the 1997 DARS license.
"The Commission’s published rules do not prohibit one satellite radio licensee from acquiring control of the other," Sirius-XM said in a joint filing.
"The Commission noted in its 1997 order authorizing satellite radio as a service that satellite radio 'licensees, like other satellite licensees, will be subject to rule 25.118.' That rule, now Section 25.119, implements the statutory requirement that the Commission grant transfer applications if doing so is in the public interest, and sets forth the basic procedures for filing an application."
Note the requirement of "the public interest" again. Defining and ultimately deciding on the public's interest is a very subjective procedure and can be accomplished by a number of concessions (i.e., the "more choice, lower prices" mantra).
"While the Commission stated in the same order that 'one licensee will not be permitted to acquire control of the other remaining satellite DARS license,' this language was not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations and thus is not a binding FCC regulation. To the contrary, it is merely a policy statement reflecting the Commission’s view, based on the evidence available in 1997, that two satellite radio licensees were needed to have enough competition in the audio entertainment market."
So they're pushing that the merger in fact in the public's best interests (a la carte pricing, lower entry point, interoperable receivers) and that XM-Sirius indeed compete with a greater audio entertainment marketplace (competing with terrestrial radio, time-shifted MP3 players, Slacker-style devices, mobile services, upcoming WiMAX initiative - all making lines of "distribution" blurred).
If they are able to convince the FCC that these two aspects are the case, then they look to have a good chance to getting this to go through. The first aspect (public interest) seems easier to accomplish than the second (relevant market) in my humble, and completely uneducated, opinion.
[via The Washington Post]
The first aspect (public interest) seems easier to accomplish than the second (relevant market) in my humble, and completely uneducated, opinion.
I disagree, Ryan. My opinion is no better than yours, but even if there is a lower entry pricepoint, I am betting that for someone who has only one service it will cost you more to have the same content after the merger that you had before.
i.e., XM subs with MLB
SIRI subs with Stern
I doubt that these will be on any but the highest tier of programming, which will almost assuredly be more than $12 per month. I don't understand how that is in my interest. Call me old fashioned, but I would rather stick with what I've got.
> a la carte pricing, lower entry point, interoperable receivers
So, which of these cannot be implemented by either company now? There may be reasons to encourage or allow a merger, but these are not among them.
-- Donald
Anonymous Coward wrote:
"I disagree, Ryan. My opinion is no better than yours, but even if there is a lower entry pricepoint, I am betting that for someone who has only one service it will cost you more to have the same content after the merger that you had before.
i.e., XM subs with MLB
SIRI subs with Stern
I doubt that these will be on any but the highest tier of programming, which will almost assuredly be more than $12 per month. I don't understand how that is in my interest. Call me old fashioned, but I would rather stick with what I've got."
-----------
You make a valid point. Nobody knows if they'll get the same content you get now at the same price because we don't know Mel's tier scheme as of yet.
We also don't know who decides which music channels are redundant and get the chop. Decades is pretty simple, but when you get to the rock channels, they are very different.