Slashdot Log In
Sirius, XM Merger Gets FCC Approval
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jul 26, 2008 01:09 AM
from the who-wants-a-choice-anyway dept.
from the who-wants-a-choice-anyway dept.
Multiple readers, including koavf, have written to tell us the FCC has finally approved the Sirius-XM merger that has been in the works for quite a while now. CNN has picked up AP coverage as well. We discussed approval of the merger by the Justice Department a few months ago. From CNN:
"The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to approve the buyout, with the tiebreaker coming Friday night from Republican commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin confirmed the final vote Friday night. 'I think it's going to be, in the end, a good thing for consumers and be in the public interest,' he told The Associated Press."
Related Stories
[+]
XM And SIRIUS Radio Merging 301 comments
lenny6998 writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that XM and Sirius Radio, the only two major players in the relatively new market of subscription satellite radio have announced a merger. "The two companies said in a statement that Mel Karmazin, the CEO of Sirius, would become chief executive of the new company while Gary Parsons, the chairman of XM, would remain in that role."
[+]
Justice Dept. Approves XM/Sirius Merger 232 comments
Ripit writes "Just yesterday the Justice Department approved the merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Radio, a Sirius takeover to the tune of $5 billion. The transaction was approved without conditions, despite opposition from consumer groups and an intense lobbying campaign by the land-based radio industry. 'In explaining the decision, Justice officials said the options beyond satellite radio -- digital recordings, high-definition radio, Web radio -- mean that XM and Sirius could merge without diminishing competition. "There are other alternatives out there," Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett said in a conference call. "We just simply found that the evidence didn't indicate that it would harm consumers."'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the merger comes with strict conditions to keep things in the public interest.
Conditions like the conditions XM and Sirius were originally given when they were granted space on the spectrum. Conditions such as "these two companies may never, ever be allowed to merge".
Re:Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Oversight as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
If the companies can't survive without each other, what's the harm in letting them merge?
The companies might have a valid case about 'not being able to survive without each other' if they didn't make almost suicidally bad business decisions like paying Howard Stern 300 million dollars only to find out he can't bring in enough subscribers to even break even on his paycheck.
And if they were to have failed individually, I'm sure there are plenty of buyers who'd love to have gotten their assets and put together a profitable satellite radio company with their current subscriber numbers.
Instead they got what amounts to a bailout -- except instead of dollars, the currency of their bailout is fair competition to the benefit of consumers in a market that's now effectively being made into a government approved, privately maintained monopoly
Parent
Re:Business as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Business as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, please someone explain the filth that his show supposedly has... I've heard more offensive material than what he has. Is it the pro-homosexuality aspect of the show (George Takei) or is it the open opinions of the show? Controversial interviews? Sick humor (get over it, nerds love sick humor, and if you are grossed out by it then you're on the wrong website). Maybe it's the occasional use the the *quiets* ... f-word used as an adjective... No no no... it's the pro-choice aspect of it. Or is it because he loves to make fun of a certain KKK member? Noooo... no one makes fun of the KKK. Oh wait.. he degrades women... yeahhh... give me a fucking break. With all the female listeners who love the show, the last thing he does is degrade females. If some porn star wants to come on the show, the first thing you would expect is for her to get nude. (What's funny is the same people who beat off to porn find this offensive.) The worst he does is point out the stupidity in porn stars. He's had an African American female co-anchor since the early 80s in DC101. Oh I know why you are disgusted with the filth... because every one who has never heard his show makes negative assumptions. That's the real reason.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh please. Their struggles are about as legitimate as Microsoft's whining that there aren't enough H1B visas being handed out and that there are no qualified Americans for X thousand jobs.
Re:Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah? And Ford has a monopoly on cars made by Ford. w00t. Someone call the lawyers.
All companies are monopolies if you narrow the 'slice' of what you are looking at down far enough. You need to look at the big picture though. Sure, Sirius and XM have a monopoly on satellite radio, but satellite radio sure as hell doesn't have a monopoly on ears. I happily listen to an MP3 player or free radio on my way into work without feeling the slightest pressure to go dump however much it costs for bad satellite radio.
Monopolies only work when there are no or few other viable option. If there is a simple substitution, the monopoly is broken, even if it isn't exactly the same product. It is like if Apple all of a sudden started to charge even higher prices for that silly little MP3 players. You couldn't cry foul over their "monopoly" on iPods. Sure, iPods might not be available at a reasonable price, but a smart person would just pick up another MP3 player that is cheaper.
The reason why they two are being allowed to merge is because one is going to tank if they don't merge. One is going to tank because satellite radio is getting murdered by the competition. If one is going to go bust, it is better to let them do it in a less destructive manner. It would be one thing if satellite radio was dominating and people were clawing at each other to break into the market. That isn't the case though, satellite radio is just barely hanging on. Letting the two companies merge is far more likely to result in quality improvements and price drops as they consolidate their infrastructure and struggle to compete in the less than profitable radio market.
Parent
Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on how close is the substitution. If Ford was the only company making cars, and the other options were walking and horses, they'd be a monopoly. If Ford ward the only company making SUVs, but you could buy cars and minivans from other sources, it wouldn't be a monopoly in any meaningful sense of the word.
Apple is the only company making Macs, but they don't have a meaningful monopoly because you can always use a PC.
Parent
Re:Business as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
You miss the point entirely. Honda has a monopoly on Honda Civics. Only Honda is allowed to make a Civic by law. Despite this, we don't consider Honda a monopoly, simply because there are lots of other cars by other companies that we consider "civic like" such that you can easily find an alternative. If Honda was to double the price of a Civic tomorrow, you would just by a different car and feel only mildly annoyed.
On the other hand, if Honda was the only one allowed to build cars in general, we would call them a monopoly. Many people need a car and have no real alternative to a car. Sure, airplanes, trains, and buses compete with cars, but they compete poorly in many instances. Only a car is going to drive you 25 miles through a New England winter from one small town to another.
The Sirius and XM merger is not a big deal for two reasons.
1) There are lots of alternatives. If the price of cars doubled, many people would simply shell out double the cash to get one. If the price of XM/Sirius doubles without a quality improvement that people find fair, they will simply stop using the service. Free AM/FM radio are direct competitors with satellite radio. MP3 players are also direct competition for satellite radio. I can't substitute riding the bus for buy a car in many instances, but it is pretty trivial to substitute an iPod for satellite radio.
2) There is going to be only one satellite company, like it or not. Neither Sirius or XM are profitable. One of them WILL go bankrupt in the next couple of years. Once that happens you will be left with... one satellite radio station. They are begging to be allowed to merge because they want the destruction of the companies to be productive, rather then have one scattered to the wind while the other scrambles to pick up the pieces.
Like it or not, there will be only one satellite radio station. The only question is if it is going to happen in a couple of years when one finally throws in the towel, or because they merged and combined programing in an attempt to better compete with AM/FM and MP3 players.
Parent
Satellite Radio is a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
When I think of satellite radio, I think of this:
*Major genres unrepresented.
*Station playlists that would become predictable within a week.
*Sub-genres within all genres utterly unrepresented in general (for example, one Metal station on all of Sirius, and it only plays death metal).
*A whole slew of stations essentially devoted to playing the exact same stuff that you hear on standard Top 40 radio.
*Commercials, despite being advertised as commercial-free.
*Annoying DJs (the receivers display the name/artist playing, you do NOT need DJs trying to be funny between every song).
*Oh, and a monthly fee on top of that.
Frankly, satellite radio was created 10 years too late. Why should I put up with satellite radio when I can use my mp3 player?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever listened to satellite radio? I'm not sure who modded you up, but they (and you) have no clue.
There's a few top-40 stations, but I never hear them. I have my favorite songs and groups programmed in and it'll alert me when any of them appear on any channel (try doing that, HD Radio).
There's a monthly fee. There's a monthly fee for your Internet service too I bet. So what?
I'm not sure where you get commercials from. A few stations have them, and I don't think any of the music ones on Sirius
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Radio isn't just music. MP3 players can't give you live sports or talk yet (outside of local FM)."
Interesting you should make this point because the talk aspect is what kept me from even considering satellite radio. There's no such thing as local sports talk on satellite radio. National sports shows are ok but they generally talk far too often about college football teams I don't care about and sports leagues like the NBA that just aren't popular around here. You also can't pick up Clark Howard. At the
Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately this will benefit the consumer. I've subscribed to both companies and my preference is for talk radio/sports. The competition for paid subscribers forced the 2 companies to continually one-up each other for exclusive content and caused problems for me when one company would win the contract from another at renewal time (nascar, baseball, etc.) At one point I had to give up programming I enjoyed listening too or pay for a second receiver with a second subscription in order to keep it.
In the last few years, I've noticed the quality of the programming has deteriorated considerably as well. Once the companies are merged, all the duplicate costs for talent, administration, customer service, etc. should be eliminated and hopefully benefit the customers with a much improved service. My understanding is that nobody will even need to buy new hardware as the channels will be combined on your existing radio.
This is not a monopoly in the sense that we cannot get similar service from another provider. If you find satellite too expensive, or don't like what they have too offer, then get rid of it and listen to terrestrial radio, or your ipod, mp3 player, etc.
What I would be more concerned about than anything else to do with this merger is the question why did this take so long to pass? Oil companies have merged in a fraction of the time with minimal resistance compared to this one!
Internet Radio (Score:3, Informative)
satellite radio seems almost quaint. How long will it be before "internet radio" puts satellite radio totally out of business?
BTW, for iPhone and iPod touch users, here's a good place to start:
http://www.seeqpod.com/ [seeqpod.com]
If you just want a radio gadget, there seem to be a few good ones available now:
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=portable%20internet%20radio [google.com]
Of course with these you can't play "kill your battery" using them over a 3G network... but then there's always the next thing..
Stern: I Will Never Vote For a Democrat Again (Score:4, Informative)
I don't necessarily agree with Stern, just adding some relevant info.
give them a cookie! (Score:3, Insightful)
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Oh well that's different! They agreed to pay their fines! We should give them a reward for being such good little boys.
And when I go downtown to pay my speeding ticket I expect nothing less than a thank-you card and a candybar.
What's WRONG with these people?
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't their numbers in the toilet anyway?
I never really had a desire to pick it up and I wasn't impressed with any of my friends purchases.
I'm sure some people like the 24/7 larry the cable guy channel.
Now, I did consider XM when they had the PC interface, but that died with the product.
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Insightful)
How could a single, monopolistic provider of a service, nationwide, be "a good thing for consumers and be in the public interest" ????
Has Orwellian doublespeak progressed so far??
Because Satellite Radio is not a monopoly; it is competing against FREE terrestrial radio, mp3 players, ipods, FREE internet radio, etc.
Parent
Re:WTF??? (Score:4, Insightful)
For crap's sake, their competition has hardly changed since they came out with their product - radio and TV aren't getting any "more free" after all and my internet bill has yet to go down.
Aside from the arrival of HD Radio, the explosion of ipods and MP3 players, and Internet Radio, you're right.
Last, from TFA: "The companies said they would introduce radios that receive both XM and Sirius channels." If memory serves, they said the same 10+ years ago. Can someone tell me why companies are allowed (seemingly encouraged) so often to act like petulant 5 year olds?
Given neither Sirus nor XM were broadcasting until 7-8 years ago, I'm not sure how you could have heard that, or thought they would make compatible radios.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but translated that means in at most another 10 years, SeriousExcem is already going to have to start replacing these satellites. Of course, none of the existing satellites will have a problem in the mean time.
That's why at least XM and I think Sirius have launched new satellites recently, and yea, the life expectancy is about 20 years. So what?
Parent
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its probably still better than the Terrestrial radio I recall from the last time I went through the area.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)