WOW! This should be a real ad in the papers. The flip-flopping going on is unbelievable.

I don't know what to think at this point, I'm against the merger on the basis that O&A and R&F would likely get screwed in addition to all the XM DJs and staff.

The NAB are against the merger because they claim satrad would cut deep into their profits when it really wouldn't.

I don't like the NAB, but I don't like this merger business either. I wonder who would be satisfied at the end? who knows at this point.

i'm against the merger too but if they don't the nab and clear channel and microsoft will run them out of town! i will vote yes on merger!

Good job! You need some MySpace cut and paste and let's get this campaign going!

espnjason said:

"I'm against the merger on the basis that O&A and R&F would likely get screwed in addition to all the XM DJs and staff."

A LOT of people are going to "get screwed" if the merger goes through, Jason. Hundreds of jobs will be lost and despite what Mel wants you to think, channels WILL be lost.

crankymediaguy,

How many jobs have been lost in terrestrial radio due to the competition of satellite radio, cell phones, the iPod, internet and the other forms of delivering audio content? How many Ford and GM jobs have been lost due to Toyota? It is a tough world out there when you have competition and have an inferior product in a competitive market.

Also many consumers including myself will be lost.

I am a fan of this merger. I like sports but right now I'm forced to choose between one radio or another (something car manufacturers don't actually give you a choice on) so I'm excited that I will be able to subscribe to one service and get all the sports on either radio. Even if they up the subscription fee so I can have football on my XM radio and baseball on my Sirius radio it will still be a lot cheaper than paying for both services, and a lot more convenient (and safer) than carrying around an extra non-integated radio for my car - both of which I'm presently doing. This is in an improvement as far as I'm concerned because now the car manufacturers don't make the choice for me as to what satellite radio content I'll be able to receive - I'll get the best of both services on both my Siruis and XM radios. It always bugged me that car manufacturers made that choice for me. I suspect now that in addition to Sirius/XM car radio manufacturers will ad HD Radio to give consumers more options. If they want to open up the playing field wider for HD Radio that simply mandate that Sirius/XM can't hold exclusives on major sports.

Would Howard Stern, Martha Stewart, Oprah, Major League Baseball or the NFL have ridiculously rich exclusive deals with Sirius if it weren't for the competition between Sirius and XM? No they wouldn't! So in that case all the competition did was drive up the prices for that content and those higher costs are ultimately transferred to consumers in the form of higher subscription fees.

If the FCC had approved the DirecTV - Echostar merger we'd probably have a lot more HD stations on satellite by now. They could have made it a condition that DirecTV couldn't have major sports exclusives like they currently do with the NFL. That would have forced them to be way more competitive and opened up the market for phone companies to deliver more compelling TV content and cable to be able to compete more aggressively bringing more competition which would have brought prices done for consumers and given them MORE choices.

The FCC are too cowardly to regulate the market in favor of consumers so they just say "no" to these mergers instead of thinking creatively about how they could actually improve service and value for consumers by approving the mergers with some conditions.

You can all be against the merger as much as you want. The problem is that the market will not support these two as competitors. So, without the merger, one of them or maybe both of them go away completely.

At least with the merger there is a chance that some of the shows people like will remain.

And why would Opie & Anthony and Ron & Fez be screwed. If people want to hear their shows, they will be broadcast. Both shows used to be on in my local market. Both went away. They seem to still be working, so I wouldn't cry for them just yet.

>>>Also many consumers including myself will be lost.

That is the whole point, Anonymous Coward. If you do not like the product of the merged company or do not see the value added, simply cancel.

No one is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to satellite radio nor will you starve to death, freeze to death or die of thirst if you do not have satellite radio. It is call a free marketplace. I have learned to live without terrestrial radio, a direct competitor of satellite radio.

A merger is just good business sense. The consumer is the one that benefits! As a consumer, you will have more channels to chose from and a wider variety of programming. Sure, there is going to be some consolidation between the two companies (Do we really need two of the same classic rock stations?), but the companies are not going to fire good people. With a merger like this, it allows both companies to "trim the fat." Cut those people who don't earn their paycheck.

Let's also talk about negotiations. NFL, NBA, Howard Stern, Martha Stewart, Opie and Anthony ... no longer do these two companies have to compete for a price in obtaining new programming. Imagine how much the Howard Stern deal would have cost if there were one company. In the end, it would reduce the amount the CONSUMER would have to pay for their subscription.

This is money that could be used for lobbying congress. I know, I know, it sounds silly ... but this is vital! The NAB lobbys congress all the time to stiffle satelite radio. The NAB is currently trying to make it illegal for satellite radio to broadcast emergency local information over their radios. How does that help the consumer? As a resident of New Orleans, I can personally say that the only radio working down here after Katrina was satellite radio! The Red Cross gave out incredible information to people who couldn't get regular radio when terrestrial radio towers went down. If the two companies merge, they would have the funds to lobby against such actions.

What about radio technology? If the two companies merge, so do their research and development labs. That means smaller radios, more portable devices and cheaper prices for .... that's right, the consumer. That's YOU if you haven't figured that out yet. With better research and development, radios will also have higher storage capacities. On that note, the NAB opposes satelite radios being able to record programming. They lobby congress and contribute to political campaigns for congressmen in order to introduce bills that would making recording satelite radio illegal. This comes back to the lobbying thing for satellite radio.

Why is the NAB opposed to the merger? It's very simple. Radio stations make money by selling advertising. If people move to satellite radio and stop listening to regular radio, the advertisers will move their money elsewhere. DJs, program managers, engineers - everyone who works in radio is at risk of losing their jobs becuase they are doing nothing to improve their product.

The NAB is doing nothing to make a better listening experience. They could be reducing the amount of commercials they play, or they could offer more unique or interesting programming, but instead of improving their product, they choose to try to stiffle the progress of others (satellite). Their money would be better spent trying to obtain better programming. Do I really need 28 minutes of commercials every hour on regular radio????

Hey! NAB! Try this one out ... reduce the amount of time you dedicate for commercials and charge more for the time you have remaining. If you reduce the amount of commercials you have per hour, you can charge more for that time available (it's called supply and demand ... less supply, more demand) At least that way your listeners don't have to spend an entire morning commute to work listening to commercials. That may be ONE reason why people are switching to satellite. Like I said, IMPROVE YOUR PRODUCT!!!!

A merger makes sense. The people who benefit the most are the consumers. As a subscriber to satellite radio, I am thrilled these two companies want to merge. In the end, it's going to mean the consumer has a better user experience, with better technology at c more affordable price.

I don't see how anyone but the NAB would oppose this.

What is terrestrial radio? Oh, that thing I gave up over three years ago!?! You mean to tell me they are still in business?

I hope this 'Mock ad' reaches congress. It amazes me how capitalism utilizes the government to leverage competition or eliminate competition altogether. Numerous industries have "stiffled" innovation in the name of self profit to the scorn of the American public.

What happen to pure capitalism? ONLY THE STRONG AND PROFITABLE SURVIVES.

Ok, regardless of whether or not the merger is a good thing, this satirical ad doesn't make too much sense. Notice how David Rehr said there would "be no competition in their DEFINED market[?]" He obviously means in the satellite radio business, not the audio devices industry in general. I mean, duh.

Haha. Nice job Ryan. How does the NAB reconcile those two statements?

WF

You know, they would already a hell of a lot more competitive in the market place if they didn't make stupid decisions with whatever money they do have. Howard Sterns contract anymore? Does anyone realize how much money was wasted on this? For what? He probably would have done the deal for 10% of what he is being paid.

A fool and his money are soon parted - XM and Sirius both fall into this category, and then they wonder how they can't compete? TO compete you have to have a good product and be profitable - something their management can't seem to figure out, especially when their product is of questionable quality - something sounding between the quality of AM radio and FM radio. I'm against the merger all the way.

Xman1: No offence, but you are a moron.

Do you realize why Howard Stern is paid so much? Because XM and Sirius were both bidding for him. XM and Sirius's competition together caused the absurd price that you complain about.

Do you realize that the quality of your satellite radio is directly linked to the amount of money the companies have for research and development as well as the placement of repeaters for improved sound quality? The reason that dont have the funds to make high quality listening available accross the entire United States overnight is because of the fact that they have to put additional funds into competeing with each other as well as competeing with MP3 players, HD radio, music enabled cell phones, and terestrial radio all at the same time. In their current state, it will all come together eventually, but as a combined entity, it could happen MUCH quicker.

I do not understand how people say that a combined company will raise prices. How can you raise prices substantially when you compete against FREE?! I would not stand for a rate increase from 12.95 to 19.95. I would cancel my subscription, as Im sure many others would. With all of those canceled subscriptions, the company would fail. We all have alternatives to listening to satellite.

When we talk about competition, what exactly are we talking about? Many people say that terrestrial radio should not be considered competition because they dont provide nation wide programming. But what exactly does competition mean? To me, it is the competition for listeners and a competition for revenue. Clearly the two compete against each other in these fields.

To quote above: "Ok, regardless of whether or not the merger is a good thing, this satirical ad doesn't make too much sense. Notice how David Rehr said there would "be no competition in their DEFINED market[?]" He obviously means in the satellite radio business, not the audio devices industry in general. I mean, duh."

Ok, so what you are saying is that one company competes against the other, but that other comapany does NOT compete against the first? Thats like saying McDonalds and Burger king take away customers from Kentuky Fried Chicken, but KFC doesnt compete agsinst McDondalds and Burger King because KFC doesnt sell burgers. Sure, they are both fast food (they are all music broadcasters) but they are not in the same industry (terrestrial vs satellite). There is absolutely no logic in that.