CNN: XM-Sirius Merger Approved by DoJ UPDATE: And FCC

[Heisenberg]

I am happy to know this should ensure the survival of my morning drive entertainment for years to come.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/24/news/companies/xm_sirius/index.htm?postversion=2008032415

[Kosher Ham]

Now this is great news. Thanks.

:cheers:

[Raub]

I have a car with a XM radio and one with a Sirius radio...does this mean both will still be able to receive programming? And on that topic...would one subscription cover both radios?

[Heisenberg]

I have a car with a XM radio and one with a Sirius radio...does this mean both will still be able to receive programming? And on that topic...would one subscription cover both radios?


I believe that the merger would definitely benefit you . . . I'm not 100% on the details so you might want to check out this website if you haven't already.


http://www.siriusmerger.com/

[lovetoaster]

Man this made my day. I just bought a new car and was going to get a new XM receiver as well, but wanted to wait on new merger information.

[chiefhogskin48]

Ultimately, this will be a bad thing. They will have a de facto monopoly... which as we can see with cable and telephone companies, is horrible for the consumer.

[zoony]

Great news! This will allow them to cut a lot of cost and stay competitive (hell, afloat)






Ultimately, this will be a bad thing. They will have a de facto monopoly... which as we can see with cable and telephone companies, is horrible for the consumer.


Terrible point. Just terrible. That is like saying if HBO and Cinemax merged, they would have a monopoly over television.

Satellite radio will be in direct competition with terrestrial radio for listners. And given that people have to PAY for satellite radio, it will cause sat radio to be that much better.


....

[JohnLockesGhost]

Ultimately, this will be a bad thing. They will have a de facto monopoly... which as we can see with cable and telephone companies, is horrible for the consumer.

If I provide a service that is new and cool (even if I'm the only one out providing the service) and everyone wants to pay me money to have it, how is that a bad for consumers?

[ntotoro]

As long as it doesn't negatively affect the cost and content of my current XM programming, while allowing me to add just the NFL a la carte, I'm all for it... :cheers:

[Buford]

Who's going to be the big dog?

Sirius I hope.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Ultimately, this will be a bad thing. They will have a de facto monopoly... which as we can see with cable and telephone companies, is horrible for the consumer.

This is an industry that did not exist ten years ago and is by no means essential. How is a monopoly a bad thing at this early stage?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Who's going to be the big dog?

Sirius I hope.

Sirius initiated the merger and Mel Karmawhatever is going to run the new outfit.

This means I get MLB now. I am as a happy as a little girl.

[Buford]

It also means that XM's ads won't start flooding my Sirius.

Now, if Sirius would just stop using DJ's unless they have an artist in the studio. I'd be set.

24 Lithium has zero ad's and zero DJ's.

[jbooma]

How will it work for new customers thought?? Will the still run them as seperate entities and you pay for certain channels etc...

I can understand the concerns of that one poster where they could charge more similar to a monopoly etc...

Should be interesting though

[Larry]

Great news! This will allow them to cut a lot of cost and stay competitive (hell, afloat)

Wow. I'm having trouble coming up with the right word to describe someone who refers to the creation of a monopoly by saying that creating the monopoly will allow the newly-created monopoly to "remain competitive".

"Competitive" with whom, exactly?


Terrible point. Just terrible. That is like saying if HBO and Cinemax merged, they would have a monopoly over television.

No, it's like saying that if Comcast and Cox merged, and if Comcast and Cox were the only two cable companies in the world, then they would have a monopoly over cable.

And they would.

HBO and Cinemax are not 100% of television. XM and Sirius are 100% of satellite radio.

[Larry]

If I provide a service that is new and cool (even if I'm the only one out providing the service) and everyone wants to pay me money to have it, how is that a bad for consumers?

But this isn't a case of one person (or company) boldly going where no one has gone before, and therefore having a monopoly over the new territory simply because no one else has gone there.

This is a case of two competitors deciding jointly that this pesky competition is cutting into their profits, and it would be so much easier to make Big Bucks if there wasn't any competition.

[JohnLockesGhost]

But this isn't a case of one person (or company) boldly going where no one has gone before, and therefore having a monopoly over the new territory simply because no one else has gone there.

This is a case of two competitors deciding jointly that this pesky competition is cutting into their profits, and it would be so much easier to make Big Bucks if there wasn't any competition.

Ok, it's a case of TWO companies boldly going where no one has gone before and then realizing they'll probably both die if they don't team up. So they do the logical thing and join together to survive.

Dude, Larry, how can you claim there's no competition? They have to compete with FREE radio.

[Chachie]

I fail to see how this is NOT a monopoly. I have Sirius in my car and I listen to Howard Stern every day talking about it's silly that this would be a monopoly. Even though I love Howard, I know in my heart he's LYING.

Other than Stern, NFL, and NBA (which are all awesome) I haven't been that impressed. I don't see where the music stations are superior. Also, the original marketing talked about no commercials but there are TONS of commercials on satellite radio.

I don't care what they do until they start jacking up my monthly fee. Then I'm gone.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But this isn't a case of one person (or company) boldly going where no one has gone before, and therefore having a monopoly over the new territory simply because no one else has gone there.

This is a case of two competitors deciding jointly that this pesky competition is cutting into their profits, and it would be so much easier to make Big Bucks if there wasn't any competition.

So, if XM folded at the end of the year and left Sirius as the only company, is that better?

[Chachie]

As I see it, soon there will be ONE company providing satellite radio to planet Earth. Ipod, terrestrial radio, etc are different industries. How is this not a monopoly?

[jbooma]

Ok, it's a case of TWO companies boldly going where no one has gone before and then realizing they'll probably both die if they don't team up. So they do the logical thing and join together to survive.

Dude, Larry, how can you claim there's no competition? They have to compete with FREE radio.



I think you are missing Larry's point. Yes they are competing in sense with free radio, but there is still no one to tell them they can't screw their customers or will they pay if they did??

Personally if they couldn't survive without each other then it is clear they were not running their business well. You don't give Stern a $500 million dollar deal and then claim you can't make money.

It doesn't work like that in the business world.

[aREDSKIN]

Ultimately, this will be a bad thing. They will have a de facto monopoly... which as we can see with cable and telephone companies, is horrible for the consumer.

My thoughts exactly. It's a gov't created monopoly. Get rady for higher subscription rates.

[JohnLockesGhost]

As I see it, soon there will be ONE company providing satellite radio to planet Earth. Ipod, terrestrial radio, etc are different industries. How is this not a monopoly?

What is and what isn't a monopoly just depends on your level of magnification.

If you focus in on something so specifically like "satellite radio," yeah they're a monopoly.

But if you broaden your focus a little you realize they have to win subscribers from the audiences of TV, the internet, terrestrial radio, et cetera then they're not.

I could claim McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs, and I'd be right. See my point?

[jnhay]

Wow. I'm having trouble coming up with the right word to describe someone who refers to the creation of a monopoly by saying that creating the monopoly will allow the newly-created monopoly to "remain competitive".

"Competitive" with whom, exactly?



No, it's like saying that if Comcast and Cox merged, and if Comcast and Cox were the only two cable companies in the world, then they would have a monopoly over cable.

And they would.

HBO and Cinemax are not 100% of television. XM and Sirius are 100% of satellite radio.
Yet you have ipods, terrestrial radio, internet radio etc. that the companies still have to compete with. Satellite radio isn't like going from over-the-air to cable tv.

The only reason Directv and Dish network weren't allowed to merge is because people aren't able to get OTA television or cable everywhere. I don't know of a place in the US where you can't get internet or terrestrial radio.


But this isn't a case of one person (or company) boldly going where no one has gone before, and therefore having a monopoly over the new territory simply because no one else has gone there.

This is a case of two competitors deciding jointly that this pesky competition is cutting into their profits, and it would be so much easier to make Big Bucks if there wasn't any competition.
They're actually both losing money. Also, oil companies have merged in less time it's taken for Sirius and XM to.


My thoughts exactly. It's a gov't created monopoly. Get rady for higher subscription rates.
I'm pretty sure XM and Sirius have formally guaranteed in some way that their subscription rates won't go up as a result of the merge.


I fail to see how this is NOT a monopoly. I have Sirius in my car and I listen to Howard Stern every day talking about it's silly that this would be a monopoly. Even though I love Howard, I know in my heart he's LYING.

Other than Stern, NFL, and NBA (which are all awesome) I haven't been that impressed. I don't see where the music stations are superior. Also, the original marketing talked about no commercials but there are TONS of commercials on satellite radio.

I don't care what they do until they start jacking up my monthly fee. Then I'm gone.
So you're saying you don't need Satellite radio? :laugh: Isn't it an oxymoron that you say it's a monopoly then when you can so easily be without it?

[Larry]

Dude, Larry, how can you claim there's no competition? They have to compete with FREE radio.

And cable TV has to compete with broadcast.

So it's be OK with you if one company owned the entire cable and satellite TV industry, nationwide, right?

Ooh, and if that one company also owned all of the broadcast TV stations in the country, that's still be OK, because after all, TV as to compete with movie theaters, too, right?

And well, if that company then bought all of the theaters, then that'd still be OK, because TV and theaters compete with family vacations, right?

-----

Problem is, every sector of the economy competes against some other sector.

That doesn't mean that monopolies are good, because there's always somebody who's somewhere who's just outside the monipoly.

-----

Tell you what. I'll support the creation of a new monopoly covering this industry, if the merger also requires the newly-formed monopoly to release all subscribers from their existing contracts.

After all, if this Brave New Monopoly is being formed for the purpose of competing with broadcast radio, then it shouldn't be born with millions of captive customers being bound by contract to stay with them, regardless of what they do, should it?

[jbooma]

What is and what isn't a monopoly just depends on your level of magnification.

If you focus in on something so specifically like "satellite radio," yeah they're a monopoly.

But if you broaden your focus a little you realize they have to win subscribers from the audiences of TV, the internet, terrestrial radio, et cetera then they're not.

I could claim McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs, and I'd be right. See my point?


Terrestrial radio and ipods are DIFFERENT then satellite radio, last i checked can you get commercial free radio 24/7 on regular radio, no

Why you are even trying to bring ipods into this is beyond me.

The fact is it will be a monoply, doesn't matter where the customers come from anyone who decides to pay for satellite radio will have no other choice.

[zoony]

And cable TV has to compete with broadcast.

So it's be OK with you if one company owned the entire cable and satellite TV industry, nationwide, right?

That is an absolutely ABSURD analogy. Think of it more in terms of Dish Network and DirecTv merging. They would still have to compete with cable and over the air.

Larry, your failure to see how this is NOT a monopoly is a direct result of your myopic view of the industry. So that's on you, not us. :)

[jnhay]

It's not like terrestrial radio and ipods only have a few options as opposed to Sirius and XMs bountiful. There are a lot of terrestrial radio stations, and there is a hell of a lot of music you can purchase for an Ipod, so that analogy doesn't work.

[zoony]

Why you are even trying to bring ipods into this is beyond me.



That doesn't surprise me. :)




What is and what isn't a monopoly just depends on your level of magnification.

If you focus in on something so specifically like "satellite radio," yeah they're a monopoly.

But if you broaden your focus a little you realize they have to win subscribers from the audiences of TV, the internet, terrestrial radio, et cetera then they're not.

I could claim McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs, and I'd be right. See my point?


ABSOLUTELY, especially the bolded part.


Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Larry/JB are just ****ing with us. They really don't see this? Wow.


....

[jnhay]

That is an absolutely ABSURD analogy. Think of it more in terms of Dish Network and DirecTv merging. They would still have to compete with cable and over the air.

Larry, your failure to see how this is NOT a monopoly is a direct result of your myopic view of the industry. So that's on you, not us. :)
You're analogy is pretty bad too, because that merger was denied. People don't have access to cable everywhere, so in the areas where Satellite service only came down to one provider it would be very bad for the consumer.

[zoony]

You're analogy is pretty bad too, because that merger was denied. People don't have access to cable everywhere, so in the areas where Satellite service only came down to one provider it would be very bad for the consumer.


well, less absurd maybe :)


Next Larry is going to argue that Greyhound has a monopoly on transportation, because if you want to travel by bus, they are your only option.


.....

[jnhay]

are they really?

as soon as a i got an ipod i stopped using satellite radio entirely.

but i guess i'm alone. the sole person in the whole united states that said f satellite radio i can have ccs radio all day long.
The only reason I listen to Sirius is because of Howard Stern. Once he's gone, I would be completely satisfied listening to my ipod and last.fm. That's why Satellite radio needs to keep their prices low. It's preposterous to think otherwise IMO.

I think the only way Satellite can survive post-Stern is from it's sports package and the lowering of costs a merger would provide.

[ixcuincle]

Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony under the same company?

Opie and Anthony have stated in the past that they haven't gotten along with Mel , who ran CBS radio back in the day when they were fired for their NY stunt. It'll be interesting to see what happens should the 2 companies merge...if they'll still be trashing Howard on their radio show
:munchout:

[jbooma]

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if Larry/JB are just ****ing with us. They really don't see this? Wow.


....


:laugh: :laugh:

I am just looking at it on the business level thats it. Honestly what everyone is trying to say is everyone can offer MUSIC and shows. What satellite radio can offer is all your music, all the channels you want, all the sports you want etc... FROM ANYWHERE

Radio can not, Ipods can not, that is the difference, and don't you think once this deal is done then the other companies involved will be able to say we can make x amount of money more since there is no one else.

That is the beauty of sat radio, which is why I never wanted it since I do not travel much at all. If I was working in sales and always on the move I would be a subscriber.

[jnhay]

Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony under the same company?

Opie and Anthony have stated in the past that they haven't gotten along with Mel , who ran CBS radio back in the day when they were fired for their NY stunt. It'll be interesting to see what happens should the 2 companies merge...if they'll still be trashing Howard on their radio show
:munchout:
I heard Howard talking about saying hi to either Opie or Anthony the other week in Atlantic City. Opie and Anthony are just struggling for ratings so they like to try to stir up things. It wouldn't make sense to when they're working alongside the guy.


:laugh: :laugh:

I am just looking at it on the business level thats it. Honestly what everyone is trying to say is everyone can offer MUSIC and shows. What satellite radio can offer is all your music, all the channels you want, all the sports you want etc... FROM ANYWHERE

Radio can not, Ipods can not, that is the difference, and don't you think once this deal is done then the other companies involved will be able to say we can make x amount of money more since there is no one else.

That is the beauty of sat radio, which is why I never wanted it since I do not travel much at all. If I was working in sales and always on the move I would be a subscriber.
I think a person who can afford Satellite radio can also afford a computer, and therefore can listen to internet radio. I'm pretty sure you can access any team's broadcast for a price, correct me if I'm wrong, on the internet(maybe that's through Sirius though). They're probably just harder to find and not as streamlined.

[JohnLockesGhost]

And cable TV has to compete with broadcast.

So it's be OK with you if one company owned the entire cable and satellite TV industry, nationwide, right?

Ooh, and if that one company also owned all of the broadcast TV stations in the country, that's still be OK, because after all, TV as to compete with movie theaters, too, right?

And well, if that company then bought all of the theaters, then that'd still be OK, because TV and theaters compete with family vacations, right?

Like I said about magnification. You want me to take it obnoxiously in the other direction to demonstrate MY point?

What if instead of owning ALL cable stations, I just own the comedy stations, am I a monopolist? What if I just own Comedy Central, so if you want to watch Jon Stewart you have to watch my station, am I a monopolist? Ooh, even more ridiculously, is Jon Stewart a monopolist because no one else in the world possesses the wit, charm and funny facial expressions he does?

The question is at what level of control does a monopoly exist. Now if you want to compare a niche market like satellite radio to nationwide ownership of cable providers, stations, etc. be my guest. But that's just a way of clouding the issue.



Tell you what. I'll support the creation of a new monopoly covering this industry, if the merger also requires the newly-formed monopoly to release all subscribers from their existing contracts.

After all, if this Brave New Monopoly is being formed for the purpose of competing with broadcast radio, then it shouldn't be born with millions of captive customers being bound by contract to stay with them, regardless of what they do, should it?

Well, I don't subscribe to satellite radio, but I'd assume their contracts are similar to my cell phone contract. I get a certain amount of service for a certain price. If I or they don't live up to my/their obligations then I'm sure lawsuits follow.

[Heisenberg]

Claiming this is bad is just an absurd argument.


If they don't merge either one or both companies would end up folding in the next few years . . . most likely XM.


This is also a luxury service . . . if they raise prices too high they will lose the loyal subscribers they have spent years trying to lure . . . meaning the business will still fail.


It's a no brainer.

[ixcuincle]

I heard Howard talking about saying hi to either Opie or Anthony the other week in Atlantic City. Opie and Anthony are just struggling for ratings so they like to try to stir up things. It wouldn't make sense to when they're working alongside the guy.

Yeah , well Opie and Anthony and Howard didn't get along when they were both under CBS radio , so I wonder if the same would happen at XM. I also fear Opie and Anthony might be removed by Mel , who doesn't like them.

Despite this , I'm all for the merger so I can listen to MLB , NFL , NBA , and the majority of major college conferences under one company. As a play-by-play aficionado , this is great :cool:

[jbooma]

obviously, you're not very tech savvy... see: itouch, fcc freeing bandwidth, hell i just bought the shadow and if i wanted to i can listen to internet radio all freaking day long from anywhere with that thing. oh and watch movies. did i mention watch movies?

frankly, what they have a monopoly on is going to be:oprah, howard stern, and opie and anthony. wooooOWwwoOOoowweeeee OWwoowoooo i really need to listen to crackheads get mcgriddles thrown at them at 7 am.



very tech savy

last i checked your itouch can not crack xm or sirius now can it :)


plus why don't you get the balls and get the dam iphone, why would you just want the itouch
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:jk: :jk:

[Larry]

Larry, your failure to see how this is NOT a monopoly is a direct result of your myopic view of the industry. So that's on you, not us. :)

My failure to agree with your idiotic "reasoning" is a direct result of your idiocy and lack of reasoning.

(Didn't want you to have a monopoly on the name calling. Monopolies are bad.)

Your "point" is that a complete 100% monopoly on satellite radio isn't a monopoly because the satellite radio industry competes against the broadcast radio industry.

My point is that every industry competes against some rival industry. But the fact that, no matter where you draw the line, there's guaranteed to be something on the other side of the line doesn't mean that monopolies never exist.

[zoony]

My point is that every industry competes against some rival industry. But the fact that, no matter where you draw the line, there's guaranteed to be something on the other side of the line doesn't mean that monopolies never exist.


Well, let's break up Amtrak and Greyhound then. As well as Boeing. This is fun. I bet I can think of more

[aREDSKIN]

This is a created MONOPOLY by the DOJ, Content provided by XM/Sirius is in no way dictated by the FCC as is Terrestrials. (Salty language adult content etc) Means of distribution are different and so is content. You cannot get XM/Sir content on Terrestrial radio regardless of how hard you try or are willing to pay. So if you want that particular content you MUST go to the ONE single source provider and that is a monopoly. Choice, by definition, requires more than one option.

[aREDSKIN]

no the content is accessible throughout the web with the exception of a few channels -- and again you can access their content through other mediums outside of satellite.

Yes, accessing the content is varied but the fee remains. A fee dictated by a single provider.

[Larry]

Well, let's break up Amtrak and Greyhound then. As well as Boeing. This is fun. I bet I can think of more

Last time I checked, neither Boeing nor Greyhound controlled 100% of their industry. (And Amtrak was deliberately created as a monopoly. Although I'd agree that there's a basis for eliminating it.)

[Larry]

This is a created MONOPOLY by the DOJ, Content provided by XM/Sirius is in no way dictated by the FCC as is Terrestrials. (Salty language adult content etc) Means of distribution are different and so is content. You cannot get XM/Sir content on Terrestrial radio regardless of how hard you try or are willing to pay. So if you want that particular content you MUST go to the ONE single source provider and that is a monopoly. Choice, by definition, requires more than one option.

Now that, I think, is defining things too narrowly.

Only way to watch Star Trek is from Paramount. That's because Paramount owns Star Trek.

And it isn't necessarily a monopoly if there are three movie theaters in my down, but only one shows Star Trek.

IMO, it's one thing for one company to control an industry. It's another matter if one company controls one particular item in that industry.

(Just because you can only get a Mustang from Ford doesn't make Ford a monopoly.)

[zoony]

Last time I checked, neither Boeing nor Greyhound controlled 100% of their industry. (And Amtrak was deliberately created as a monopoly. Although I'd agree that there's a basis for eliminating it.)


Again, we go back to your myopic definition of the industry. And again, that's on you.

The radio industry is not defined by satellite radio. It is one small part. There is now internet radio, HD radio, terrestrial radio (FM/AM), and sat radio.


If you don't like it, don't buy it. This isn't like the AT&T monopoly where your only option for phone service was thru them, or your power company, etc.

Besides, your other alternative is for both Sirius and XM to go belly up, which is where they are headed if the merge doesn't happen.



Again, I get the feeling you're just ****ing with me anyways, and you don't really believe your own nonsense. (seriously)

[Larry]

Again, we go back to your myopic definition of the industry. And again, that's on you.

The radio industry is not defined by satellite radio. It is one small part. There is now internet radio, HD radio, terrestrial radio (FM/AM), and sat radio.


If you don't like it, don't buy it. This isn't like the AT&T monopoly where your only option for phone service was thru them, or your power company, etc.

And by your definition, AT&T wasn't a monopoly, because there was ham radio.


Again, I get the feeling you're just ****ing with me anyways, and you don't really believe your own nonsense. (seriously)

Oh, I'll freely admit that it's possible to honestly debate whether something is an "industry" or "part of an industry". It's a judgment call.

But there's a difference between "honest debate" and "blanket declarations followed by name calling".

[zoony]

And by your definition, AT&T wasn't a monopoly, because there was ham radio.
.


Oh come on Larry, that is ridiculous and you know it. You've completely backed yourself into a corner on this one, and it shows.

.....

[Larry]

Oh come on Larry, that is ridiculous and you know it. You've completely backed yourself into a corner on this one, and it shows.

And yet, you haven't made a single argument to support your position. Simply more name calling.

(I'll agree: This is a discussion which can't be proven logically. It's like debating which movie is the Best Western Movie. The response cannot be anything other than an opinion.)

You think that "satellite radio" isn't an industry (or whatever the term is that means "a big enough business to be treated as a separate industry for purposes of anti-trust".) I do.

But we're both stating an opinion.

[zoony]

And yet, you haven't made a single argument to support your position. Simply more name calling.

(I'll agree: This is a discussion which can't be proven logically. It's like debating which movie is the Best Western Movie. The response cannot be anything other than an opinion.)

You think that "satellite radio" isn't an industry (or whatever the term is that means "a big enough business to be treated as a separate industry for purposes of anti-trust".) I do.

But we're both stating an opinion.



Okay, I'll try again. (and I think you need to look up the definition of name calling)


Would you be in favor of breaking up MDI? They have a "monopoly" on air-powered cars. Why or why not?


And you completely ignored the Dish/DirecTv merge still having to compete with cable/air.

....

[USS Redskins]

If I could make an intelligent point here - "Bababooey to y'all!"

Seriously - both companies have lost millions every year for nearly a decade. If something wasnt done, one or both would have been out of business farily soon.
As far as calling it a monopoly - no one is being forced to purchase anything from these companies and this is hardly a must have service. I willingly pay my $13 per month for Howard Stern but I am not contractually bound to do anything more than 1 month at a time.

[Chachie]

I could claim McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs, and I'd be right. See my point?

Your analogy is flawed though. I'd be wrong if I said satellite radio had a monopoly on disco. They have a monopoly on the service they provide and that's all there is to it. Planet earth will have ONE choice for "pay radio." The original subscribers who DID CHOOSE which product they wanted are about to get screwed.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Your analogy is flawed though. I'd be wrong if I said satellite radio had a monopoly on disco. They have a monopoly on the service they provide and that's all there is to it. Planet earth will have ONE choice for "pay radio." The original subscribers who DID CHOOSE which product they wanted are about to get screwed.

As much as anti-trust law is sold as being pro-consumer it's really more anti-consumer than anything.

You can say the people are "about to get screwed," but they'd be more likely to get screwed if the merger was denied. If the merger was denied XM and/or Sirius would probably go out of business making the service completely unavailable, at any price.

I'll stand by the rights of the shareholders, CEOs, and Boards of Directors to run their businesses as they see fit and if they vote to merge that's their business.

[GSF]

I think some of you guys don't understand what a monopoly is. The merger of Sirius and XM is absolutely not a monopoly for 2 reason:

1. There is no barrier of enrty preventing other companies from creating competition. If HBO wants to send up a satellite and start a subscription radio service they can.
2. Satellite radio is a luxery item. If they raise their prices to high, customers will cancel their subscriptions and their company will fail. People don't need satellite radio.

In order for a monopoly to exist, the company in question must be in a position where they can raise their prices however they want, and their customers will be forced to to pay those prices. That is obviously not the case here.

The whole monopoly debate around this merger was created by terrestrial radio companies, whose lobbyists have huge influence in Washington. The DoJ got it right this time, finally.

[Larry]

1. There is no barrier of enrty preventing other companies from creating competition. If HBO wants to send up a satellite and start a subscription radio service they can.

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think that's true. See, in order to work, the system has to have at least one reserved frequency for the downward transmission. (Either a lot of frequencies, or one frequency with a lot of bandwidth.)

HBO can't just transmit on the same frequency that XM is using now, because then neither system will work.

(There may be a different way to get the content downhill, such as piggybacking the data onto somebody else's signal. But even that method basically requires either a radio frequency license (a government-granted, exclusive license to a limited resource), or the consent and assistance of somebody who has such a license.)

Radio spectrum is some valuable real estate.


2. Satellite radio is a luxery item. If they raise their prices to high, customers will cancel their subscriptions and their company will fail. People don't need satellite radio.

In order for a monopoly to exist, the company in question must be in a position where they can raise their prices however they want, and their customers will be forced to to pay those prices. That is obviously not the case here.

The whole monopoly debate around this merger was created by terrestrial radio companies, whose lobbyists have huge influence in Washington. The DoJ got it right this time, finally.

I think that's a partially-valid point, but I'm not quite ready to claim that in order to be a monopoly, the object must be an item that's essential to life, and must be completely price-inelastic.

Example: As I understand it, a lot of anti-trust law was written to apply to the railroads, way back when. Now as far as I'm aware, no one ever claimed that railroads were essential to life in the old West. Should the railroads have argued that "I'm not a monopoly, just because I own all the railroads in the state, because people can still use horse-drawn wagons."?

-----

And as to your claim that "the whole thing is being done by terrestrial radio lobbyists": Wouldn't the broadcast people want monopoly-driven price increases in one of their competitors?

[SpringfieldSkins]

Here we go... Lifted off of www.wikipedia.org (http://www.wikipedia.org/)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly


In Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), monopoly (also "Pure monopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#cite_note-0) Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) for the good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) or service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29) that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good).


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopoly&action=edit&section=1)] Economic analysis

No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product.
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.
Other common assumptions in modeling monopolies include the presence of multiple buyers (if a firm is the only buyer, it also has a monopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony)), an identical price for all buyers, and asymmetric information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_information).

The result of these conditions is that a company with a monopoly does not undergo price pressure from competitors, although it may face pricing pressure from potential competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_competition). If a company raises prices too high, then others may enter the market if they are able to provide the same good, or a substitute, at a lower price. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#cite_note-4) The idea that monopolies in markets with easy entry need not be regulated against is known as the "revolution in monopoly theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_monopoly_theory)".

A monopolist can extract only one premium, and getting into complementary markets does not pay. That is, the total profits a monopolist could earn if it sought to leverage its monopoly in one market by monopolizing a complimentary market are equal to the extra profits it could earn anyway by charging more for the monopoly product itself.

However, the one monopoly profit theorem does not hold true if there exist:

Stranded customers in the monopoly good.
Poorly informed customers.
High fixed costs in the tied good.
Economies of scale in the tied good.
Price regulations for the monopoly product

-------------------------------------------------------------------




I would have to conclude that this would create a monopoly. My reasoning being that there is no easy entry into their market (satellite radio), which they and only they have the ability to provide.

Satellite radio differs (in my opinion) from terrestrial radio or HD radio in the aspect that satellite radio stations can be hears from a much larger range of locations. They are the only company providing this service, AM/FM and HD radio does not have this sort of capability.
Example: You can't listen to "The Junkies" or "Big O and Dukes" after you get out of WJFK's broadcast range.

There is no easy entry into their market cause, well think about it, it's damn expensive to launch a satellite. Also as someone explained before, these frequencies are very expensive and largely already occupied. Nobody is preventing somebody else from starting a satellite radio company, but I don't think it would be fiscally or reasonably possible.



I'm not opining that this "monopoly" is a good or bad thing, just that it would seem to be a monopoly based on what I have learned in school. Maybe it's just my opinion, but that is what it seems to be.
:2cents:

[Raub]

Satellite radio is not a monopoly....

The entire oil industry is....

;)

[SpringfieldSkins]

Satellite radio is not a monopoly....

The entire oil industry is....

;)


While I do agree that we are getting ****ed by the oil industry, there are multiple oil companies in the world and only American companies can be "trust busted". Plus the weakness of the American dollar has a negative effect on the cost of oil as well.

Anyhow, were getting ****ed, plain and simple.

[Fifty Gut]

Finally. I've been a subscriber to both for a years.

[jnhay]

How can two companies that are losing money combine and be considered a monopoly? They are far from market leaders, and it wouldn't make sense for them to raise their prices because they're already having problems with getting subscribers as it is.

[jbooma]

How can two companies that are losing money combine and be considered a monopoly? They are far from market leaders, and it wouldn't make sense for them to raise their prices because they're already having problems with getting subscribers as it is.

Maybe they both should not be in business and let another company emerge :)

[TheLongshot]

As others have said, this isn't going to make a monopoly. Course, a similar case with with a merger between DirecTv and Echostar didn't end up going through, even tho that really wouldn't be a monopoly with the competition of cable and now FiOS.

I think there are a lot of issues that still need to be dealt with, and certainly subscribers are nervous. As someone who has subscribed to both, I much preferred XM's programming over Sirius', and there is a question of how much of that will survive in the merger. Considering that XM has been watering down their content in recent years and the exit of Lee Abrams a week or so ago, I'm not confident.

Certainly, more bandwidth will allow for more programming, which is needed, but will it come at a reasonable price, and will that programming be worth a damn?

Personally, I'd like to see SatRad succeed. We need greater outlets for music, and local radio no longer cuts it. The problem is, can it continue to push the boundaries, or will it ultimately become as watered down as OTA radio, 200 channels with nothing on?

Jason

[jnhay]

Maybe they both should not be in business and let another company emerge :)
The fact that the NAB is so intent on fighting against the merger should show that it isn't a monopoly.

[Chachie]

I think some of you guys don't understand what a monopoly is. The merger of Sirius and XM is absolutely not a monopoly for 2 reason:

1. There is no barrier of enrty preventing other companies from creating competition. If HBO wants to send up a satellite and start a subscription radio service they can.
2. Satellite radio is a luxery item. If they raise their prices to high, customers will cancel their subscriptions and their company will fail. People don't need satellite radio.

In order for a monopoly to exist, the company in question must be in a position where they can raise their prices however they want, and their customers will be forced to to pay those prices. That is obviously not the case here.

The whole monopoly debate around this merger was created by terrestrial radio companies, whose lobbyists have huge influence in Washington. The DoJ got it right this time, finally.




Fair enough.

[Xameil]

If you read from their site, subscription rates may actually go down depending on what package you choose.

Of course this was brought to XM from Sirius, Sirius was going to die before XM would have. Sirius had NFL and Howard, but XM had much better music stations.

[Xameil]

but i guess i'm alone. the sole person in the whole united states that said f satellite radio i can have ccs radio all day long.


yeah probably because personally I listen to X/BC radio...I don't know if I would like ccs radio ;)


and yeah when I got my ipod I started listening to satellite less, but still do occasionally.

[Dictator]

yeah probably because personally I listen to X/BC radio...I don't know if I would like ccs radio ;)


and yeah when I got my ipod I started listening to satellite less, but still do occasionally.

I've gone the opposite direction. I've gone from listening to my ipod/zune to Sirius.
There's only so many times I can listen to my same collection before getting tired of it.

[outbaksean]

I've gone the opposite direction. I've gone from listening to my ipod/zune to Sirius.
There's only so many times I can listen to my same collection before getting tired of it.
Am I the only one here who is fine with FM for my music?

[Kosher Ham]

I have both and enjoy Sirius so much more it isn't even close.

You can also buy the Stilleto for Sirius, which essentially makes your Sirius player and MP3 player, and you can record live programming and rewind/ff/save/etc, like a DVR.

[Heisenberg]

Am I the only one here who is fine with FM for my music?


No clue how you do it.




Song . . . DJ Promoting Concert/making unfunny joke . . . Song . . . 5 minutes of commercials . . . Dj making another unfunny joke . . . Song . . . repeat.



Cannot stand that crap anymore. Satellite radio is a godsend for anyone with a morning commute or who spends a lot of time in their car.

[Xameil]

I've gone the opposite direction. I've gone from listening to my ipod/zune to Sirius.
There's only so many times I can listen to my same collection before getting tired of it.


well thats when I switch back to my XM. But since I have 500 songs on random on my ipod, and a second 1 gig shuffle....its not much different ;)

[Raub]

I have both and enjoy Sirius so much more it isn't even close.



I agree. I've had both, and cancelled my XM to keep Sirius.

[jbooma]

No clue how you do it..


Easy fm cost - 0
sat cost a month - what 13.99
sat cost a year - $167
sat cost 5 years - $839

that is a 12 pack every month :laugh: :laugh:

[jnhay]

If you read from their site, subscription rates may actually go down depending on what package you choose.

Of course this was brought to XM from Sirius, Sirius was going to die before XM would have. Sirius had NFL and Howard, but XM had much better music stations.
I don't see Sirius dieing with every major sport except baseball along with Howard Stern. The music channels are the easiest to provide.



I would have to conclude that this would create a monopoly. My reasoning being that there is no easy entry into their market (satellite radio), which they and only they have the ability to provide.

Satellite radio differs (in my opinion) from terrestrial radio or HD radio in the aspect that satellite radio stations can be hears from a much larger range of locations. They are the only company providing this service, AM/FM and HD radio does not have this sort of capability.
Example: You can't listen to "The Junkies" or "Big O and Dukes" after you get out of WJFK's broadcast range.

There is no easy entry into their market cause, well think about it, it's damn expensive to launch a satellite. Also as someone explained before, these frequencies are very expensive and largely already occupied. Nobody is preventing somebody else from starting a satellite radio company, but I don't think it would be fiscally or reasonably possible.



I'm not opining that this "monopoly" is a good or bad thing, just that it would seem to be a monopoly based on what I have learned in school. Maybe it's just my opinion, but that is what it seems to be.
:2cents:
There are clear alternatives though. I think even Pandora has mobile functionality. It doesn't have to be via satellite to be an alternative.

[GSF]

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think that's true. See, in order to work, the system has to have at least one reserved frequency for the downward transmission. (Either a lot of frequencies, or one frequency with a lot of bandwidth.)

HBO can't just transmit on the same frequency that XM is using now, because then neither system will work.

(There may be a different way to get the content downhill, such as piggybacking the data onto somebody else's signal. But even that method basically requires either a radio frequency license (a government-granted, exclusive license to a limited resource), or the consent and assistance of somebody who has such a license.)

Radio spectrum is some valuable real estate.



I think that's a partially-valid point, but I'm not quite ready to claim that in order to be a monopoly, the object must be an item that's essential to life, and must be completely price-inelastic.

Example: As I understand it, a lot of anti-trust law was written to apply to the railroads, way back when. Now as far as I'm aware, no one ever claimed that railroads were essential to life in the old West. Should the railroads have argued that "I'm not a monopoly, just because I own all the railroads in the state, because people can still use horse-drawn wagons."?

-----

And as to your claim that "the whole thing is being done by terrestrial radio lobbyists": Wouldn't the broadcast people want monopoly-driven price increases in one of their competitors?

Larry,

I'm not an expert on radio technology, but I believe HBO or anyone else could obtain a frequency to broadcast if they wanted to. They are not restricted by the government, and sirius and XM didn't get the last 2 frequencies available. HBO could go through the same licensing process as Sirius and start a satellite radio company if they choose to. Of course they would have to invest in a satellite.

As to your last comments about the broadcasters, the merger will probably lower prices of satellite radio subscriptions. Terrestrial radio is already hurting because of its terrible programming and the arrival of things like MP3 players and satellite radio. This merger will hurt terrestrial radio even more, which is why they are fighting it. Radio, btw, is notorious for being a corrupt industry. Here are Jim Cramer's (CNN Mad Money host) comments on the merger:



JIM CRAMER, THE POPULAR HOST of CNBC's "Mad Money," laid into the National Association of Broadcasters and members of Congress on Monday for trying to stop the merger of XM and Sirius Satellite. Cramer blamed the NAB for lobbying politicians to stop the merger, now under review by the Justice Department, which he said would benefit consumers as well as the companies.


While Cramer usually steers clear of political issues, his opinions carry a great deal of weight with viewers who look to him for investment advice, including forecasts on proposed deals like the Sirius-XM merger. Cramer specifically attacked Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission for portraying the merger as monopolistic. He noted that they didn't raise the same kind of anti-trust concerns about other big media deals.

Cramer also lashed out at terrestrial broadcasters, calling them "a powerful moneyed interest that has a lot of influence on politicians, even though as a business, it's dead, and no one's listening."

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=77419

I know you like to play devil's advocate, but I think you're just wrong on this one.

[APBT]

When has a monoply been good for the consumer??

[Dictator]

I just cannot see this as a "monopoly". They are dealing with a luxury item here. It's not home phone service, or electricity. They are not in a position to force consumers to utilize their product. They will price what their market can bear. People who don't like it will cancel their service.

[TheLongshot]

Easy fm cost - 0
sat cost a month - what 13.99
sat cost a year - $167
sat cost 5 years - $839

that is a 12 pack every month :laugh: :laugh:

Only if you are paying the monthy fee like that. I signed up for a 5 year deal with XM for $500 a few years back (which I could get a refund on for the time I didn't use if I decided to cancel.)

This is like saying you can live with rabbit ears for TV. You could, but you'd be very limited. Also, unlike TV stations, radio stations change formats all the time. My wife signed up for XM because the last decent classical station went to a low power station and she couldn't get it in her car anymore.

Jason

[zoony]

I bought a lifetime subscription to Sirius for $400 in January. It can be transferred up to 3 times from vehicle to vehicle.

[APBT]

I bought a lifetime subscription to Sirius for $400 in January. It can be transferred up to 3 times from vehicle to vehicle.

How is that lifetime??? Can you transfer the radio unit itself. If not, next time use your money wisely.

[outbaksean]

I bought a lifetime subscription to Sirius for $400 in January. It can be transferred up to 3 times from vehicle to vehicle.
For that much money I could buy a nice flat screen HD TV...
Oh wait, I did.:)

[jnhay]

How is that lifetime??? Can you transfer the radio unit itself. If not, next time use your money wisely.
Do the math. I believe Sirius costs about $10 a month. The deal makes plenty of sense.

[zoony]

For that much money I could buy a nice flat screen HD TV...
Oh wait, I did.:)


if you spent as much time in the car as I do, you'd do the same. Besides, I've already got 2 big screen plasmas and a projection LCD. My wife would divorce me if I bought another one.

.....

[jbooma]

I bought a lifetime subscription to Sirius for $400 in January. It can be transferred up to 3 times from vehicle to vehicle.



ask people how their lifetime subscription for Tivo is going :silly:

which is why these sat companies are struggling, terrible business plans

[jbooma]

if you spent as much time in the car as I do, you'd do the same. Besides, I've already got 2 big screen plasmas and a projection LCD. My wife would divorce me if I bought another one.

.....

just please tell me you feel you can't afford healthcare :D

[zoony]

ask people how their lifetime subscription for Tivo is going :silly:

which is why these sat companies are struggling, terrible business plans


I was originally going to purchase 2 years, b/c that's how long I have on my current vehicle. It was close to $300 iirc. For another $100 I got a lifetime, so it didn't sound like a bad deal.

[APBT]

Do the math. I believe Sirius costs about $10 a month. The deal makes plenty of sense.

I did do the math. Sirius offered it to me and I declined. The idiot at Sirius said no one really goes for it, but he thought he'd ask.

[zoony]

How is that lifetime??? Can you transfer the radio unit itself. If not, next time use your money wisely.

yes, I bought the mobile Sirius. So yes, it can / will be transferred.

.....

[jbooma]

yes, I bought the mobile Sirius. So yes, it can / will be transferred.

.....

only 3 times you said :silly:

[jbooma]

The idiot at Sirius said no one really goes for it, but he thought he'd ask.


And people wonder why they are having financial issues :doh:

not including the 500 million dollar deal with Howard "washed up" Stern

[Dictator]

yes, I bought the mobile Sirius. So yes, it can / will be transferred.

.....

so how do they know what vehicle the unit is in?

[Kosher Ham]

It is for the lifetime of the radio. I am going to get that on, my newest radio, and change the other to the secondary radio since it is already a few years old and the screen sometimes acts up.

[zoony]

only 3 times you said :silly:


I turn in my car every 60k, which is between 2-3 years. So I figure I'll get a while out of it. And I can always change it over to one of my personal vehicles.

You keep dodging the fact that a 2 year subscription costs almost as much.


And why do so many people care what plan I bought? :laugh:

However, I do take comfort in the fact that jbooma and the pit-bull fighter think I made a bad decision. That's a fairly good gauge to know you did the right thing.

.......

[zoony]

It is for the lifetime of the radio. I am going to get that on, my newest radio, and change the other to the secondary radio since it is already a few years old and the screen sometimes acts up.


You can transfer it to another radio up to 3 times. Like if the current unit I have breaks, or I want to upgrade, or I get a new car with Sirius integrated, I can transfer it.

[jnhay]

I did do the math. Sirius offered it to me and I declined. The idiot at Sirius said no one really goes for it, but he thought he'd ask.
$400 would cover a little over 3 years. So it's not a lifetime, but it's definitely worth it if you use it for at least 3 years.


And people wonder why they are having financial issues :doh:

not including the 500 million dollar deal with Howard "washed up" Stern
Being very conservative, Howard Stern brought at least 2 million subscribers. Multiply that by the monthly subscription rate and it'll show you that he was worth it. Not to mention that his pay also goes towards his staff, studio, and programming.

Name another DJ that can single-handedly boost an entire company the way he has.

[Dictator]

Name another DJ that can single-handedly boost an entire company the way he has.

The Greaseman. ;)

[Heisenberg]

Funny that everyone says Stern is washed up . . . I'm not quite sure how I'd survive my morning commute without him.


I don't get it.

[jbooma]

However, I do take comfort in the fact that jbooma and the pit-bull fighter think I made a bad decision. That's a fairly good gauge to know you did the right thing.

.......


I never said you made a bad decision :)

[jbooma]

$400 would cover a little over 3 years. So it's not a lifetime, but it's definitely worth it if you use it for at least 3 years.


Being very conservative, Howard Stern brought at least 2 million subscribers. Multiply that by the monthly subscription rate and it'll show you that he was worth it. Not to mention that his pay also goes towards his staff, studio, and programming.

Name another DJ that can single-handedly boost an entire company the way he has.


2 million wasn't enough. You have to take in all the consideration Howards gets paid, and what they pay for the show. The only thing saving sirius is not Howard but XM :)

[APBT]

the pit-bull fighter think I made a bad decision. That's a fairly good gauge to know you did the right thing.

.......

Comments like this would make a body roll in its grave......

[jnhay]

2 million wasn't enough. You have to take in all the consideration Howards gets paid, and what they pay for the show. The only thing saving sirius is not Howard but XM :)
"Not to mention that his pay also goes towards his staff, studio, and programming. "

They actually even gave Howard Stern bonuses on top of the $500,000 for the incentives he reached! Without Howard Stern, XM would have run over Sirius by now and not even considered a merger. There's no way XM is "saving" Sirius, it's more like they're saving each other. Sirius brings in Howard Stern and sees huge benefits, while XM brings in Oprah and no one notices. If XM was so successful Mel Karmazin wouldn't be CEO of the merged company.

[GSF]

2 million wasn't enough. You have to take in all the consideration Howards gets paid, and what they pay for the show. The only thing saving sirius is not Howard but XM :)

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, as usual.

[SpringfieldSkins]

Now, this may give me a reason to renew my XM subscription...


Sirius - XM merger approved by the FCC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5454366

It's happening guys.

[USS Redskins]

Cool. Now we just need Stern to go back to 5 days a week and to sign another 5 year deal.
Bababooey to y'all!

[SpringfieldSkins]

I guess we should have the title of this thread changed to "DoD and FCC".

[MSB 21]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080729/nytu062.html?.v=101

Press Release Source: SIRIUS Satellite Radio; XM Satellite Radio


SIRIUS and XM Complete Merger
Tuesday July 29, 7:30 am ET
SIRIUS XM Radio Chosen as New Corporate Name
Combined Company Has Over 18.5 Million Subscribers, Annualized Second Quarter Revenue Exceeding $2.4 Billion
Company to Offer Consumers Best of Both Services, While Maximizing Significant Efficiencies
SIRIUS XM Reiterates Financial Guidance; Expects 2009 Synergies of $400 million and 2009 Adjusted EBITDA of over $300 Million

[ixcuincle]

Opie and Anthony best remain on this new merger network. Obviously they don't like Howard so it'll be curious to see what happens. :laugh:

[Heisenberg]

Opie and Anthony best remain on this new merger network. Obviously they don't like Howard so it'll be curious to see what happens. :laugh:


They'll be kissing his ass now.



I remember reading XM was going to let their deal expire because they weren't getting any listeners.


One thing nobody can argue: Stern delivered listeners to Sirius.