Satellite radio just became a monopoly

The Justice Department has just announced approval of a deal for the only two satellite radio companies -- Sirius and XM -- to merge.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department approved Sirius Satellite Radio's $5 billion buyout of rival XM Satellite Radio on Monday, saying the deal was unlikely to hurt competition or consumers.

The deal was approved despite opposition from consumer groups and an intense lobbying campaign by the land-based radio industry.

The buyout received shareholder approval in November. The companies said the merger will save hundreds of millions of dollars in operating costs - savings that will ultimately benefit their customers.

The Justice Department, in a lengthy news release explaining its decision, said the two companies compete not just with each other but also with other forms of radio and entertainment.

The Justice Department under Bush probably can't even spell antitrust, let anyone recognize a case of it.

Apparently having just one choice in satellite radio is OK because if you don't like the one company you can always just listen to commercial radio or watch TV or pick your nose.

This is like saying it's OK to have just one cable TV company in America because you can always just watch the networks.

•  Another Bushco gift to big business.

  I wonder how this will impact my XM receiver.

  by boran2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM PDT

  •  It'll make your XM Receiver kick more A$$

    Satellite Radio is analogous to Satellite TV...just one way to get audio entertainment in your car/boat/etc, that has to compete with others.  Both companies were bleeding money before the merge; maybe now they might make a profit, and keep more people employed.

    I really like Satellite Radio, but if they F with me I have no problem saying "See ya!"

    by Indecent on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM PDT

•  Competition ..

  who needs it? Bah!

  by zeke7237 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:00:07 PM PDT

  •  Who cares if satillite radio is a monopoly?

    There's still plenty of competition for my ears when I'm in the car.

    Free radio, HD radio, CD Players, iPod compatible car stereos, etc., etc.  Or, for my money, CSPAN and NPR.

    If the market can't bear 2 pay radio services, one of them should fold.

    by VA Classical Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      there's so many more important things for us to be worried about than this non-existent "monopoly".

      by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:18:58 PM PDT

      •  In many places you have a choice

        SEVEN, EIGHT, and even NINE country stations at a time.

        Sometimes you get a break in the afternoons - Rush Limbaugh.

        Good thing there is an off-switch.

        by SingleVoter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM PDT

        •  Then load your MP3 player with good podcasts

          Or get books on tape from you library.

          Or burn your own mix CDs.

          Or just enjoy 20 minutes of silence.

          You said it yourself.  There's an off-switch.  You don't have to listen to any of it.

          And if there aren't enough listeners in your area to support a free alt-rock station (or whatever you like) or to support 2 $15/month pay radio systems, just take advantage of one of the dozen alternatives.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:42:33 PM PDT

          •  The situation I describe exists over LARGE

            sections of the South.

            Sunday is a day of rest.

            You get to listen to the preacher talk about sin for an hour instead.

            by SingleVoter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:02:51 PM PDT

            •  Check out the "VA" in my nom de Kos

              I know what the South is like.

              But that doesn't mean you have to listen to it.

              by VA Classical Liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:18:23 PM PDT

            •  So turn the radio off!!!

              Jesus Christ ... quit whining and grow up.

              by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM PDT

        •  Cry me a river

          You can't get the music you want to listen to for free on the radio.  Boohoo!!!

          Frankly, the Congress and Justice Department ought to be investigating stuff that actually effects the livelihoods of people.

          You must be a subscriber to one of the two companies because obviously this is a life changing event for you.  So if you're so unhappy, cancel your subscription and invest the money you're saving in some CD's or mp3s.

          by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:32:28 PM PDT

    •  I agree and I am actually glad...

      that they allowed this merger. Its not like it is Microsoft of the mid-late 90s, where basically the only software available on all computers was from one company.

      To me it just means I will get even more channels when I go to satellite radio and I won't have to choose between NFL and MLB, I can get both.

      by DemBrock on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM PDT

      •  What will you say when they jack up the price?

        That's what I'm afraid of.

        by dconrad on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM PDT

•  does that mean I will get to hear all the XM

  stuff on my sirius radio? :)

  by Chuckie on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM PDT

  •  and vice-versa???

    by voila on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM PDT

    •  Nope see below nt

      by JML9999 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM PDT

  •  Does that mean I will get to hear all the sirius

    stuff on my xm radio? Because I just bought a year's contract and I had assumed I would. If they don't jack up the price then I don't see the problem here. In fact I was essentially planning on it happening when I made the decision.

    by Krinkle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM PDT

    •  I've got a one year subscription as well.

      I'll take a wait and see approach before deciding to get rid of it.  I really do like having it though so if it only goes up a little, I'll likely stick with it.

      by madmsf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM PDT

•  Well, here's what DOJ said

  Excerpt:

  The Division reached this conclusion because the evidence did not show that the merger would enable the parties to profitably increase prices to satellite radio customers for several reasons, including: a lack of competition between the parties in important segments even without the merger; the competitive alternative services available to consumers; technological change that is expected to make those alternatives increasingly attractive over time; and efficiencies likely to flow from the transaction that could benefit consumers.

  "The Division’s investigation indicated that the parties are not likely to compete with respect to many segments of the satellite radio business even in the absence of the merger. Because customers must acquire equipment that is specialized to the satellite radio service to which they subscribe, and which cannot receive the other provider’s signal, there has never been significant competition for customers who have already subscribed to one or the other service. For potential new subscribers, past competition has resulted in XM and Sirius entering long-term, sole-source contracts that provide incentives to all of the major auto manufacturers to install their radios in new vehicles. The car manufacturer channel accounts for a large and growing share of all satellite radio sales; yet, as a result of these contracts, there is not likely to be significant further competition between the parties for satellite radio equipment and service sold through this channel for many years. In the retail channel, where the parties likely would continue to compete to attract new subscribers absent the merger, the Division found that the evidence did not support defining a market limited to the two satellite radio firms that would exclude various alternative sources for audio entertainment, and similarly did not establish that the combined firm could profitably sustain an increased price to satellite radio consumers. Substantial cost savings likely to flow from the transaction also undermined any inference of competitive harm. Finally, the likely evolution of technology in the future, including the expected introduction in the next several years of mobile broadband Internet devices, made it even more unlikely that the transaction would harm consumers in the longer term. Accordingly, the Division has closed its investigation of the proposed merger

  by Adam B on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:01:03 PM PDT

•  XM has a great station called POTUS 08

  24/7 campaign coverage.

  You do not need to subscribe.  Just have an XM radio and you should be able to pick it up as one of their free previews.

  Also, if you have certain digital cable or satilite TV packages, you can pick it up.

  http://www.xmradio.com/...

  by aaraujo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM PDT

  •  channel 130 on XM n/t

    by teacherken on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:15:35 PM PDT

    •  yep

      been listening to that on my way to and from work

      by aaraujo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:16:23 PM PDT

•  DOJ is actually right on this one

  The relevant marketplace is not just satellite radio, it also includes, at least, conventional radio and over-the-internet audio broadcasts.

  This is no more an antitrust violation than it would be if the only two Greek restaurants in a city merged their operations.

  by MJB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention that

    Sirious would have gone under without this.

    by Mike S on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    Satellite radio is a terrific service, but the operating costs are threatening to drown both companies...their only hope of survival is this merger.

    The radio industry actually lobbied the repubs very hard against this -- frankly I'm pleasantly surprised that they didn't bend to the wills of clear channel et. al.

    by EF in NY on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM PDT

    •  FCC hasn't been heard from yet

      I know conventional wisdom says that the FCC will rubber stamp the DOJ decision, but I'm not so sure.

      Look for some sort of twist -- an FCC ruling that satellite will have to conform to decency standards or some such nonsense that Sirius/XM will neve stand for, followed by years of court appeals.

      Hope I'm wrong -- I want this merger, totally agree that the DOJ made the right decision -- but there is a huge amount of Clear Channel and other broadcaster lobbyist dough on the table and I'm figuring there is at least one more round of ignorant government/corporate interference yet to go.

      by Montco PA Dem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

      •  XM has Parental Control n/t

        by dangoch on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM PDT

  •  Competition from ....

    Pandora caused me to drop sirrius last year.

    by decon on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM PDT

•  Satellite "radio" is not "radio."

  "Radio" engages itself in its local community, and contributes to the local economy.
  Sirius/XM does nothing of the sort.
  You want a satellite box?
  Fine. but don't come running to me if the levees break and you don't get the EAS alert.
  And please, don't call it "radio."

  by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM PDT

  •  hah!

    c'mon kestrel .. radio hasn't done that since the 70s!

    by zeke7237 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM PDT

    •  Bullshit, it doesn't.

      I'm doing it right now as we speak.

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

      •  Then you're the exception

        My AM-FM radio choices, and I live in a pretty large market, consist of preprogrammed, focus-group chosen music, right-wing propaganda, NPR, or sports talk. I like much of NPR, but I don't need it all day. I like sports, but I don't care who Dave in Waukesha thinks the Packers should draft. And I'm sick of "Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac. Meanwhile, they're playing Coltrane on XM channel 70. It's not a tough call for me.

        by Korkenzieher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM PDT

        •  speaking of focus groups...

          satellite radio does what terrestrial AM-FM could never do:

          Datamining.

          Whereas, radio DJs of the 70's would mix ELP's Brain Salad Surgery in between Fleetwood Mac and Sly Stone, XM radio partitions music into narrow, focus-group inspired categories.

          Led Zeppelin has it's own channel!! (Ponder that one...)

          Now, every song you listen to can conceiveably be tallied and compared to other personal information: credit card purchases, internet surfing habits, passwords....

          I liked the variety of rock, pop, funk, new wave, country-rock, R&B that 70's radio and it's long forgotten DJs would suprise us with. Along with LOTS of brand new, unknown stuff.  It was a much more well rounded, liberal arts education in music.

          Today's mainstream radio has become like today's mainstream television: cover bands and karaoke.

          by oobi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

  •  In that case, radio no longer exists

    just Muzak piped in from Clear Channel HQ in a dozen flavors.

    by Geenius at Wrok on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:05:36 PM PDT

    •  I don't work for Clear Channel n/t

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM PDT

  •  neither does Clear Channel...

    ....(support/contribute to the local community) which should be disbanded one way or another, if it takes bringing back the media ownership laws as they were before whoever-it-was signed off and Rush took over.  

    by G2geek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

    •  Actually, they do.

      They employ local talent, have local sales staffs, do remotes and charity events..........

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM PDT

      •  point taken, but even so...

        ...what about local content origination?  Local programming decisions?  Local control at the editor and publisher levels?   I frankly don't know the answers to these points, so these are not rhetorical questions.  

        Though, I do have a strong bias toward "local" in everything economic and cultural.

        One thing we seriously need is for FCC to enforce greater diversity re. religious programming.  On the typical radio dial, a substantial number of stations all coming from the same denomination or from subtle variations thereon, while other denominations are simply not represented.  Most large urban areas could easily support Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu stations, and many smaller cities could support a Jewish station and an "Asian philosophy and religion" station (Buddhist and Hindu).  

        And if the Muslim station just happened to be Sufi, that would also act as a substantial attractant to the moderate wing of Islam and away from the extremist wing from which terrorism recruitment operates.  

        by G2geek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:45:50 PM PDT

        •  I'm on the air....

          I'll respond in detail once I'm not ;)

          by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM PDT

        •  Uh....

          One thing we seriously need is for FCC to enforce greater diversity re. religious programming.

          "Congress shall makle no law respecting an establishment of religion."
          Or did you not get the memo?
          I don't want government involved in that shit at ALL.

          And if the Muslim station just happened to be Sufi, that would also act as a substantial attractant to the moderate wing of Islam and away from the extremist wing from which terrorism recruitment operates.  

          Not the proper purview of the FCC.

          by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:11:13 PM PDT

  •  Not always the case...

    .. now that I live in Wisconsin, that's pretty true.

    But the Sirius channel for weather - news updates & traffic for Chicago was my #1 choice when I lived in the Chitown metro area.

    It's not perfect - but it's yet another choice, and that's what I was looking for.

    If the merger means we have one solid satellite station - instead of two now - soon zero as they both go under ...  not sure how that's a bad thing.

    And ANYTHING that pisses off Clear Channel, I'm behind 150%.

    by Timoteo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

    •  Are you sure?

      Taking jobs away from members of your own community is okay because it pisses off Clear Channel?
      You know, when doctors post here I don't jump up and second guess their diagnoses.
      When lawyers post here I don't generally argue the law with them.
      But it's funny how so many people on this blog think they know more about my industry than I do.

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM PDT

•  What will it take for people to realize

  We are going to hell in a hand basket,

  Have you heard about the new "bracelets" they are trying to make every one boarding a plane has to wear?
  It logs all your personal info, but also doubles as a tazer that they can use to subdue you if they choose.

   

  by VictoryGin on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM PDT

  •  mojo for your username :)

    by zeke7237 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM PDT

    •  You are the first to catch that!! Thanks

      by VictoryGin on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM PDT

  •  I've not heard about these bracelets.

    These things can be triggered inadvertently.  Who in their right mind would put one on?  I'd rather drive from NYC to Miami, all else being equal.

    by Greasy Grant on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:09:03 PM PDT

  •  all there is so far, is a patent application.

    No airline in its right mind would voluntarily adopt a policy requiring passengers to wear those things: enormous lawsuit risk the first time the system is hacked or someone is accidentally tazed or a cardiac patient flat-out refuses to put the damn thing on.  

    The only way those things are going to be put into use is if the patent holder somehow convinces FAA to require that all carriers use them.  This would alleviate some but not all of the liability issues.  And the fight over it would probably end up putting a few more Ds in Congress.  

    However, there is a sneaky route for the company to get some kind of sales activity:  schools and prisons.  

    This one bears watching, closely.  

    by G2geek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:17:39 PM PDT

•  They have plenty of competition

  It's called free radio.  I am all for the combination of these two companies.  There is no need for two pay services, each with half of the channels I want to listen to.  

  I still use DIrectTv even though it's the onyl viable satellite service that remains.  The competition is with Cable TV, not only with other Satellite companies.

  I feel the same way about Sirius/XM.  If their prices get too high or the service deteriorates, then they will lose subscribers.  Having two satellite companies doesn't add so much competition so as to have any material impact anyway.  

  by Bardy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM PDT

•  The Technologies are incompatable

  So One Group or the Other of Clients is going to get Triple Screwed.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  Sirius receivers decode all three 4 MHz carrier signals at once to achieve signal diversity. This is in contrast to XM which uses six carriers and decodes three 2 MHz carriers to economize on receiver power consumption and complexity at the cost of channel-changing speed.

  by JML9999 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM PDT

  •  nope

    they've been collaborating on making all new radios capable of receiving each others signals for at least 18 months now and as part of their agreement with the Justice Department they offered to provide significant discounts to owners of older radios.

    by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM PDT

    •  They Said the Same thing about Blu-Ray vs HD DVD

      When there was talk of building units that would play both types of disks

      Right this second the systems are incompatible and define "significant discounts"

      by JML9999 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM PDT

      •  Well And What Did Sony Do When

        HD DVD dropped out? Raised the prices on their Blu-Ray players. The average price is now $400, which was what it was a year ago.

        by webranding on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM PDT

        •  Its a flawed comparison

          Blu-Ray is now the ONLY physical way of buying & selling high definition video.  There's no parallel with satellite radio.  The quality of satellite radio is no better than terrestrial radio.  And the entire structure of the audio entertainment industry is COMPLETELY different than the video entertainment industry.

          by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM PDT

      •  "There was talk"

        There's been more than talk between XM & Sirius.  All the new units that XM & Sirius have been putting out for the last year has been capable of receiving both signals.

        by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:27:39 PM PDT

•  Radio sucks anyway

  unless you live near an art school with a low-power FM station at the 80-something end of the dial. When I gave up my car eight years ago, I pretty much also gave up listening to the radio. The few times I've tuned in since, I've concluded I'm not missing a thing.

  iTunes all the way, baby.

  by Geenius at Wrok on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

  •  try...

    pandora, or last fm.

    by decon on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM PDT

    •  I use last.fm

      I stopped using Pandora; the results were too inconsistent. It kept giving me songs I flat-out hated.

      by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM PDT

  •  actually, there are lots of great..

    internet radio stations.  If you have Itunes, just check out the RADIO tab, where you'll find tons of great stations.  I can also now stream some of these stations on my cell phone...

    by akr nyc on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM PDT

    •  HUH?

      I can also now stream some of these stations on my cell phone...

      Tell me how!!!

      by Nonie3234 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:28:19 PM PDT

      •  you have to have a phone that allows this

        as does my Sony walkman phone and other Nokia models and just make sure you have an unlimited data plan.  

        by akr nyc on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:22:08 PM PDT

        •  Ah! Thanks! I'm going to look into that...

          by Nonie3234 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM PDT

  •  Favs on XM: Air Musique et Sur la Route

    The Air Musique and Sur la Route channels have turned me on to a bunch of new artists I'd never heard of and given me a fun new way to practice my French.

    by dconrad on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM PDT

•  clear channel

  and others were trying to block this merger from what I've heard.  I for one am glad this went through.  Not all mergers are bad.  Both of these companies are losing money and would have gone under had it not been for this merger.  I think this will be a good thing for both companies involved as well as for consumers.

  by dehydratedcracker on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:05:07 PM PDT

  •  and then we can...

    ...treat the new radio monopoly the way we used to treat the Bell Telephone System: regulation for content neutrality.  Bring back the fairness doctrine one piece at a time.  

    So maybe there is an upside after all!

    by G2geek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:11:42 PM PDT

•  As long as they keep the Grateful Dead channel

  and Outlaw Country, I won't complain too much, though I suspect this merger will be a precursor to my dropping satellite radio in the near future.

  by darthstar on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM PDT

  •  It was always a matter of time

    on the merger, but yeah, the Grateful Dead channel must be a keeper.

    Love the name and the sig, man.  That line was almost was the subtitle of my last book.

    by SteveG on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM PDT

    •  Cool...you just made another sale.

      by darthstar on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM PDT

•  As Someone who Listened to XM the Past Five Years

  I'm not thrilled.  XM Radio was known for robust alternative programming and deep playlists.  With Lee Abrams gone and the merger now a likelihood, I think it's going to turn into repetitiveness--I guess good news for those only wanting to hear Britney Spears.

  If the programming turns into junk-I'll just discontinue my membership and recycle my Delphi. It was fun while it lasted.

  by norm on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM PDT

  •  that's the way its supposed to work

    give your customers what they want or die.  But I think yo're wrong about what they'll do.  Both companies only have one top 40 station and I don't expect the new company to have more than one either.  Otherwise they'll go out of business in a heartbeat.

    by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM PDT

•  Ummm

  Your cable analogy has holes in it.  Cable Companies are mini monopolies because they don't cross geographic boundaries.

  by fishhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM PDT

•  I Love Me My Sirius Radio

  But as I just wrote on my blog:

  Today the Justice Department approved Sirius Satellite Radio’s $5 billion buyout of rival XM Satellite Radio, saying the deal was unlikely to hurt competition or consumers. Interesting. When there are only two firms in the world that offer the same service and one buys the other, how can it be said the deal is "unlikely to hurt competition or consumers." Just curious.

  And for a couple people that said they have competition, and it is called free radio. Well kind of. But then I guess video games, CDs, books and newspapers are competition as well.

  As somebody that has had Sirius for more than three years it is not the same as free radio. Not even close.

  by webranding on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM PDT

  •  We're going broke

    but have $5 billion for a buyout.

    by SingleVoter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:39:20 PM PDT

•  I think it's a good merger.

  I hate conglomerates as much as anyone, but the entire satellite industry has been struggling and their content fractious.

  by phillyPete on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM PDT

  •  But I Have Issues With It

    And here is just one example. My brother and I went with Sirius a couple days after Howard Stern announced his move (a year before he went live). We got have a couple things we'd like changed, but happy.

    My parents on the other hand couldn't get St. Louis Cardinals baseball games after the team moved from the  50,000 watt KMOX to a much smaller station. So we got them XM.

    My gut is one of the first things that is going to happen is the NFL on Sirius will move to XM. And the NHL and MLB on XM will move to Sirius and they'll attempt to raise my monthly fee.

    Well I don't care about the NHL and I get the NFL football package on DirecTV.

    Now if they let me tier my plan like cable and satellite TV does I'll be fine. But when there is only "one game" in town if they decide to up my monthly fee then I only have one choice. To cancel my subscription. That really isn't choice in the grand scheme of things.

    by webranding on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM PDT

    •  But what was happening

      They were both bidding up the same things, so MLB, and Howard Stern got outrageous contracts. That is one of the reasons the two were losing so much money. Once that ends, it is more likely the bidding wars will come to an end. Yes, there is a concern that they will simply stop airing some of their products, but I would be more upset if they both went under and I had to go back to broadcast radio. That is the almost certain result if they don't merge.

      by corwin on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM PDT

•  Give me a fucking break

  To call this a monopoloy trivializes real monopolies.  Neither of these companies is financially solvent on its own.  Both have been on the verge of bankruptcy for at least a year now.  Just look at their financials.  If the merger hadn't been approved, one of them would have gone out of business and you'd still have one company.  The only difference is that hundreds would have lost their jobs and millions of consumers would be left with useless radio receivers.

  Besides nobody NEEDS satellite radio.  If they raise prices, people will just cancel their membership and use other sources of audio entertainment.  Other choices means its not a monopoly.

  by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:16:59 PM PDT

  •  The satellites are already in space

    The offices are built.

    All they had to do was renegotiate royalty rates.

    Howard Stern didn't have to paid that much.

    by SingleVoter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM PDT

    •  and they're in massive debt

      because they're splitting a small market for a very expensive industry.  The new company will have double the subscribers with the cost of 1.25 companies at the most.  They'll still have to struggle to avoid bankruptcy.

      And as for Howard Stern, he's the only talent working for either company that's paid for himself several times over.  Sirius makes nearly three times the amount from his subscribers annually than they pay him in salary.  Without Stern, Sirius would have gone bankrupt a year ago.  I'd say it was a incredibly smart investment.  The same can't be said for Oprah/XM.

      by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM PDT

      •  If investors put up $10 billion

        for stock, a monopoly isn't allowed, but if it is debt, a monopoly is OK?

        by SingleVoter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:46:52 PM PDT

        •  Well its not a monopoly for one thing

          A real monopoly is a situation where a company or group owns all or practically all of the market for a service.  Satellite radio's market is audio entertainment.  They don't own the audio entertainment marketplace.  There's ALL SORTS of competition.  CD's/CD players, MP3's/MP3 players, regular free radio, internet radio, etc.

          This isn't the railroad.  This isn't the steel industry.  This isn't the phone company.  This isn't Microsoft.  NOBODY suffers if they can't have or can't afford satellite radio.  Nobody depends on it for business.  Nobody depends on it to feed their families.  If the new company doubles their prices, subscribers will cancel and the merged company will go out of business.  Why?  Because there will still be competition and nobody needs it.

          by Marc in CA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM PDT

•  Sirius lacks some important music stations

  (world music, Bob Dylan channel) now I can have the best of all worlds. No. it doesn't have local programming, that's part of its regulatory mandate.

  by the fan man on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM PDT

•  Canada still needs to approve

  I doubt the two companies could merge if Canada rejected the bid and the US endorsed it.  It would be hell trying to run competing operations just for Canada.

  by Scientician on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:19:18 PM PDT

•  I want to know how Sirius can buy XM

  when XM was at least 2-3 times as big?  They deliberately HQ'd in Washington DC to easily lobby Congress, FCOL.

  by trashablanca on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM PDT

  •  that's what I was wondering as well.

    Actually, I'd always thought it was XM buying Sirius.  I remember when the merger was first announced last year, I'm certain it was XM doing the buying.

    Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what channels stick around.  What's going to happen to AirAmerica?  What about Sirius left (I think that's what it's called).  Just don't take away the MLB channels on XM.

    by madmsf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:33:43 PM PDT

•  As a stockholder

  And XMSR subscriber, I'm happy with the merger finally going through.  Was a bit concerned that w/o it, both would be going belly up in the near term future.  What really surprises me is that big terrestial radio companies weren't able to put the kibosh on it.

  Anyways, as long as I still have my opera, reggae, and world music channels I'll be happy.

  by marcvstraianvs on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM PDT