Sirius, XM Merger Gets FCC Approval 187
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."
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".
WTF??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Has Orwellian doublespeak progressed so far??
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.
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:Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its probably still better than the Terrestrial radio I recall from the last time I went through the area.
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.
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
Re:No place to go. (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re:WTF??? (Score:2, Insightful)
A single satellite radio company is not really a "single, monopolistic provider of a service, nationwide" though. It's a direct competitor of traditional radio. It also competes with mp3 players and podcasts, CD's, audio books, etc. If they started any sort of monopolistic practices, people can just cancel their subscriptions and choose a multitude of other audio distribution methods. The justice department spent over a year investigating the issue and ruled that it would not in fact be a monopoly.
The two companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year. At this point it may not be a question of two satellite radio companies or one, it's one company or none. And the "approval" is not a straight approval, it would require them to set aside a quarter of their bandwidth for their direct competitors. Which brings up an interesting point. Who has forced this issue to be delayed through various government agencies over the last two years? The National Association of Broadcasters. Not some consumer interest group, but an organization representing some of the largest companies in the country, who will be hurting most from this decision. Not because it's creating a monopoly, but because it has the potential to break the attempted (and FCC approved) monopolies of its clients in regional markets.
Re:Oversight as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Business as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
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:Satellite Radio is a joke (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 time I let my free trial expire, there was also no local weather or traffic but I think they've done something about that. Back when I had the free trial, I spent maybe 10 minutes of my daily commute of 60-70 minutes listening to the satellite. The rest of the time was spent listening to AM. To be fair, I didn't touch the FM dial while I had satellite.
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.