Slashdot Mirror
FCC Nixes Satellite Radio Merger
a_nonamiss writes "Doesn't look like Sirius and XM are going to merge any time soon. I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Logically, I know that competition is a good thing for consumers, and monopolies are generally only good for companies. Still, I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes pre-installed, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both. Frankly, it's probably all this exclusivity that has caused me not to purchase either system." From the article: "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters after an FCC meeting that the Commission would not approve a merger between satellite radio rivals Sirius and XM Radio... When the FCC initially licensed the two satellite radio companies in 1997, there was language in the licensing barring one from acquiring control of the other... Even if the FCC were to have a change of heart..., it would still have to pass antitrust scrutiny by the Department of Justice."
Go with what your brain knows to be true, not what your heart desires for the short-term.
So don't. Either choose your radio service based on what is installed in the car, or have a satellite radio system for whichever system you want installed by a third-party store. Problem solved!
Actually, there's really not a lot of exclusivity between the two services. They both have rock stations, rap stations, country stations, etc. I didn't even know that Oprah had a show on XM, and I only know that Stern has a show on Sirius because of all of the hoopla around him leaving the broadcast airwaves. I think that the NFL prefers one service over another, and past that, I really don't know of anything else except maybe some talk personalities that I've probably never heard of.
So as long as the services are separate, you'll have to live without either Oprah or Stern (neither of which, in my humble opinion, is much of a sacrifice). But each service also has to be price-competitive and service-competitive to keep you from switching. They have to periodically roll out new features and improve the quality of existing features to keep up with the other. And they have to pay Joe Talkshow a decent salary to keep him from going to the other. Those things, again in my humble opinion, are preferable to having Oprah and Stern on just one service.
That antitrust scrutiny is there for a reason, and in this case, it's very well justified.
About two years ago I was on the verge of getting a satellite radio subscription .. And then I discovered the iPod. These days any money that I might have considered spending on a satellite radio subscription (with those ridiculous contracts) just gets spent on larger & larger iPods for my wife and I. Both broadcast and satellite radio have become irrelevant in our lives.
Still, I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes pre-installed, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both.
You could solve this with a monopoly offering a single proprietary solution.
Or you could enforce that both Sirius and XM adhere to and publish an open standard, such that a single receiver device can be used to tune in both. If the FCC had balls and were ethical, that's what they'd have done.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
How is this a science article? I would think it would be a political article, or 'your rights online', or some such.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
I can see the point of having competition, but having incompatible hardware is going a bit too far, isn't it?
What if, during the early days of broadcast TV, you had to chose between UHF and VHF? Or, with terestrial radio, FM and AM?
Seems kinda screwy!!
Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
Where AT&T is allowed to consolidate and satellite radio is not.
Regardless of the reasons, it looks awfully funny to those outside.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The only way I can see using satelite radio is if traditional radio broadcasters reduce power to the point of being unusable the way broadcast TV did...
Still, I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes pre-installed, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both.
Is there anyone on the planet who wants to listen to BOTH Howard Stern AND Oprah?
I would think the desire for one would automatically exclude the other.
and you can even play your CDs/digital music in your car usually for free.
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I can get a stereo that can play DTS and Dolby 5.1, I can get a quad-band cell phone. Perhaps it is time to make players that support both, then you can pick and choose, based on who has the best content.
Choose your car based on pre-installed satellite radio? That's hard core.
Whether or not monopolies are "good for consumers" is irrelevant.
It's not government's place to care.
It's government's place to stay the hell out of the way. All government needs to do is enforce contracts that any given set of individuals choose to make among themselves and arrest and punish those who initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Frankly, it's the idea of giving any of my money to either Howard Stern or Oprah that has held me back from getting satellite radio service.
My bicyles
I know there's been talks about the two companies merging to deal with financial trouble that was incured from startup costs. Does anyone else think that the FCC might let them merge if and only if they allow the FCC to oversee what they put on the air. The FCC already has too much power this won't help any. We need to go to European type standards, not make ours even stricter.
My 8-track and I don't need either of them.
Regardless of what the FCC pronounces from on high, there will be only one satellite radio provider within a couple of years. Market forces currently dictate that both companies cannot continue to bleed money at the rate they are doing and have any hope of long-term survival.
In fact, the tin foil hatter in me would probably suggest that big radio conglomerates like ClearChannel are actively lobbying behind the scenes to make sure that Sirius and XM can never join forces - in the hopes that they successfully kill them both, to allow re-entry into the market by those that missed the boat the first time.
Personally, I love my XM, and don't ever listen to local radio any more. More choice, less commercials, NHL radio broadcasts from several different markets every night? Why would I ever go back. Commercial radio listening is dropping like so many "buggy whip manufacturers 3 year outlook" and they know damned well that Satellite is taking a big chunk. (Not all, as others have already suggested, iPods and mp3 players are also changing how people listen to music).
One or the other is going to go belly up, and then what is the FCC going to say? "No, you're not allowed to woo former customers, because that would create a monopoly?"
How stupid is that?
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
I used to listen to Sirius and it sure has many channels... of crap.
Since then I bought a tiny Archos Gmini 20GB mp3 player and now listen to what I want when I want it. Allofmp3.com is another factor.
Its about having choice. What if you want to listen to Jazz but the area you live in only has pop, country and rock to offer? In the end this is just like people complaining about having to pay for Television when Cable was new.
Break out common functionality and put it in a superclass which both children inherit.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Regular radio, there are multiple, independent stations that deliver content over a standard medium to standard receivers.
Television is distributed in that manner, as well as by cable and satellite distribution companies which are (mostly) separate from the stations.
Satellite radio is weird, because the entity you pay for distribution is the same entity providing the programming.
So, let XM and Sirius form and spin-off a third company that handles the satellite infrastructure.
Let various manufacturers sell satellite radio receivers.
Keep XM and Sirius as separate providers of programming, much like HBO and Cinemax. As a consumer, you can buy one, the other, or both, and get it all on one receiver.
paintball
I have both installed in my 1996 Isuzu Rodeo. I have a Kenwood EZ-700SR CD/Receiver with integrated Sirius and iPod adaptor. It also has an auxillary input that I'm using to connect my external XM receiver, and occasionally my PSP.
Problem solved.
I have an XM subscription. Kills regular radio dead.
- I live near Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Needless to say, the selection of stations is not exactly the broadest. Definite XM advantage here.
- I frequently drive through areas with even LESS of a selection of stations than Eau Claire. XM is a godsend when you'd otherwise be spending hours driving through, say, Nebraska, listening to Country or Country.
- No commercials on (most) XM stations! Listening to radio is much nicer when you're not constantly interrupted with whatever the radio promotion of the week is.
- NO MORNING SHOWS! Well, actually, there are morning shows, but they don't TAKE OVER your regular radio stations and prevent you from listening to actual music.
Now, maybe you personally don't want to pay for radio. That's fine. But there is no shortage of reasons why someone would be willing to pay for the features satellite radio offers over regular broadcast stations.
paintball
If you like college sports, MLB or NHL then you had better choose XM. If you like NFL or NBA then you had better choose Sirius. There is no way to listen to college football and later the NFL on the same radio. This is actually a MAJOR draw back for a lot of people.
Personally I was planning to get XM radio because Im sick of the ten minutes of music then ten minutes of commercials I get on terestrial radio. The problem being if they merge I dont care to in anyway support Howard Stern. Its a personal taste thing but he drives me nuts. I hated high school and the guy gives me serious flashbacks. If Im left with no choice between the two Ill default to CDs and save the money. Im sure some feel the same about Oprah, personally I have no opinion. I realize there are multiple channels but the one power you have is to vote with your dollars.
The real problem is if they are trying to merge it means neither is profitable, no shock there, so both will likely go under. For my two cents I say let them merge if you do one thing. Separate the pricing so you have your choice. I have no interest in supporting shock jocks, Oprah neither. I say offer package deals where you can get talk or music or a bundle of both. If you cant have competition at least have choice.
I _really_ wish the FCC would stop trying to control markets and technologies. I can understand the issues with interference, but exactly how is a monopoly in a new and developing industry a bad thing for consumers? Isn't the first company providing services in a certain space a monopoly? Does that mean we shouldn't allow a company to come up with a new radio technology unless there's another company that's also doing it?
Being a monopoly is not evil in and of itself, it's when that monopoly uses its power to keep others out of the market that it becomes a problem. How exactly could a merger of Sirius and XM Radio keep others out of the market? It's not like they can prevent competitors from launching satellites, or buying bandwidth on someone else's satellite. Consumers will always be free to purchase a new receiver if need be.
Once again let me state, the FCC needs to be abolished. It serves no purpose. It failed at it's only given task. It is a pointless commission that loses billions of dollars. I mean literally loses. Hey where's that two billion we got siphoning off the phone bills of Americans? It was just here a minute ago I swear.
This
I know Stern loves to compare it with the second coming of the Christ, but come on... is bouncing signals off satellites the best way to deliver content nowadays?, it wasn't such a novel idea in 1997, it can't be all that now, or can it?
There is plenty of good, ad free content on Internet radio stations. I wrote an Internet Radio Recorder for Mac, and I am sure you can easily find options for Windows and Linux. There are also lots of free music and talk podcasts on iTunes. Why pay a monthly subscription fee for something you will only use once in a while? How many talk shows you are going to listen to anyway?
Just use the same frakin radio
If there was a monopoly in sattelite radio.... so what?
It's an optional service. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, needs to buy sattelite radio service.
If they piss off their customers, what are the customers gonna do?
STOP PAYING THEM.
That's all. Folks will listen to free broadcast radio or cd's instead. They won't starve, they won't have to dig up a precious resource themselves, and they won't have to kill someone in the streets to get their fix.
But hey, the FCC got to flex their muscle. They must be proud.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Let's not bullshit each other. When XM and Sirius start kicking political contributions at the level of your ClearChannels and your CBS, or just do the "All GOP, All the Time" approach of the Salem Radio Network, then you'll see that maybe the FCC isn't quite so firm about this unwillingness to allow a merger.
We just saw a decade of media consolidation at a level unseen outside of the Kremlin, and all of a sudden, the FCC is gonna start watching out for the consumer? Please.
The FCC has abrogated its responsibility to Americans a long time ago. Their "protection" of the citizens' ownership of the broadcast spectrum disappeared faster than an envelope full of hundreds down Duke Cunningham's (R, CA) jacket pocket. Maybe, just maybe, if a couple of the paleo-liberals like my boy Dennis Kucinich (crazy as he is) put the fear of god back into the hearts of the cake-eaters who currently own the media with his earnest (if improbable, and unworkable) threat of a return to "Fairness" (Fairness! Perish the thought!!) then we might see a few cracks in the walls of the Great Fortress of Trickle-Down Truthiness known as the Media. And maybe, when that happens, we might again see a little daylight between what the consumers of information in this country want and what our government will allow us to have.
Of course, I always hold out the hope that some leaders will emerge that have a few shreds of decency, and that they might get elected, but then again, I'm high.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So the companies can't merge. The recievers can. So let's have one that pick up both signals. They did it with AM stereo. And they're doing it with our fancy new disk players. Am I being redundant here?
What?
how on earth could the AT&T/Bellsouth merger been granted if this doesn't go through?
AT&T now owns 60% of the bells in the country. again!
just because there are only 2 satellite radio companies doesn't mean merging is a bad thing.
the technology and content is still too expensive to affect too many people.
Merging would bring the one company in a better position to aggregate their technology and content to the masses.
They're using their grammar skills there.
>> or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both
A=Oprah's fans
B=Stern's fans.
A intersection B = {null}.
With music, software or any other media, however, there's no digging or interruption to local traffic. Companies trying to hold a monopoly there, e.g. by lobbying politicians, can go and fuck themselves.
Also, If you pollute my space with your RF transmissions, I'll do what ever the hell I like with them.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
The solution as I see it is for the satellite radios to share content the way cable companies can. You don't have to choose between The Discovery Channel and ESPN on cable. But I can't have Stern and baseball without getting both XM and SIRIUS.
For some reason satellite radio providers are in charge of the content and the distribution. I don' t understand the underlying difference in the markets.
Noz
It's government's place to stay the hell out of the way. All government needs to do is enforce contracts that any given set of individuals choose to make among themselves and arrest and punish those who initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
You forget that corporations are created by government. So if government has to stay out of the way, then we start by getting rid of the corporate status.
If we did this, Sirius and XM would instead be partnerships. All of the investors in those companies would be jointly and severally liable for the contracts and the torts of the partnership (as you point out, enforcement of those things is the only purpose of government).
All the investors would be risking their life savings in order to start a satellite radio company. There wouldn't be a lot of people willing to invest in those partnerships. So there wouldn't be much danger of them becoming monopolies... Hell, there wouldn't even be much likelihood of them existing.
Have fun riding your horse and buggy to work... oh, and your computer just disappeared. No one was willing to invest the money to invent it (or to manufacture it even if it had been invented).
Jenny Scheinman sure has been on NYC-area radio. In fact, pretty much the only NYC-area radio station worth listening to: WFMU-Jersey City, the "freeform station of the nation". If you are looking to find interesting music you've never heard before, go no farther. 91.1 in NYC area and 90.1 if you go up the Hudson valley a bit. http://wfmu.org/ on the web, streaming in many different formats. All shows archived, and searchable (http://wfmu.org/search.php), which is how I found that Jenny Scheinman has been played at least 19 times on WFMU in the past few years (maybe more, because some dj's are less fanatical about posting playlists than others). Find your favorite artist and jump to their song; it's like a gigantic jukebox. Many dj's on WFMU also do shows for XM and Sirius. I could go on and on, but please check them out...
If you don't like Stern - don't listen!
Actually, his show is far better on satellite then it ever was on terrestrial radio.
If you buy satellite radio (Sirius) I guarantee that you'll tune in to his channel one day, and something on his show will make you laugh. I used to be anti-Stern as well, but really the show is quite entertaining. All the challenging/serious computer work all day can make you want to listen to some fun trash talk. His show can be a de-stresser for me at times. Sometimes the show is dull / sometimes it is absolutely hilarious! Now that it's on satellite, give it a try. I think you can subscribe just to the on-line radio (Sirius has an internet feed). Try it for a month before you buy the hardware.
I go on long drives often (500km-1100km) - it's nice not having to hunt for radio stations while you're driving. Satellite has really changed the way I listen to music while driving. iPod - I have one of those. I'm a busy professional and don't have time to dink around downloading songs or bothering with DRM.
I don't understand how a merger could be denied. How big was Clear Channel allowed to get again? An XM and Sirius company would still compete with terrestrial radio, television, online music, etc.
This decision promotes competition, but since they've stated they are interested in merging should provide impetus to develop similar hardware standards. It would have to happen if a merger were ever approved. So good for consumers, and if the companies are friggin retarded, should create standards!
Whoever the submitter is, he/she seems to have a pretty rosy view of a merger would result in. It doesn't mean that both XM and Sirius would fuse into one all encompassing uber service where you would get every existing channels for the same monthly fee. It just means that XM/Sirius would be owned under a single corporate umbrella. I would not be shocked to see increased monthly fees post-merger. One thing keeping subscription fees at their current level is the fierce competition with each other and fear that a price increase would be met with a flood of subscribers jumping to the competition.
If anything, they would try to differentiate each service in the market *even more* and remove redundancy, so to get the whole variety of channels, you would have to subscribe to both. It makes sense from a shareholders perspective; if XM and Sirius are both the same company, why spend resources having nearly identical Rock stations on both carriers? But if you put 80's and Metal Rock stations on XM and Top 40 and Punk Rock stations on Sirius, then listeners who enjoy all genres of rock have to make some painful decisions or (ideally) subscribe to both. And if you owned the entire satellite radio market, then there's no fear of your customers jumping to the competition, because there is none.
Except that Cable/Sat TV set top boxes are proprietary much like XM/Sirius. Ever try to hook up a comcast box to a cox cable network. Without the box you are pretty much relegated to hbo and basic subscription channels.
Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
Rebuild the Death Star? FCC says "Cool! Watch out for snub fighters!"
Merge two niche radio markets? Nuh uh. Not gonna have any of that. No interoperability for you!
The FCC should go back to policing wardrobe malfunctions.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
People who subscribe to neither Sirius nor XM don't seem to be aware that the differences between Sirius and XM go far beyond Stern vs Oprah, and NFL vs Baseball.
Sirius's music channels are generally programmed like "normal" radio stations, but without the commercials. They have DJs, Top XX countdowns, and playlists. Sirius generally appeals to people who hate the endless commercials or have musical tastes that vary from the local market norm (ie, someone into garage alternative or trance forced to live in some horrible small town or rural area where half the local stations are country, and the other half are religious), but are perfectly happy once they discover Sirius and get to enjoy the kind of radio that used to be available only to people in places like New York and Los Angeles.
XM's music channels are mostly jockless (no DJ) and have significantly deeper playlists. XM's subscribers call it "non-repetitive variety without intrusive, annoying chatter" and view it as a huge advantage over Sirius. On the other hand, most Sirius subscribers feel like they're listening to a CD player where someone put in a stack of CDs and hit the 'randomize' button when listening to XM. Different strokes for different folks.
The fact is, if XM took over Sirius, or Sirius took over XM, and the victor used the additional bandwidth to improve audio fidelity or add video services, and pretty much wiped out the other network's channels and format altogether, I *guarantee* at least half the losing service's customers would be gone within 3 months. Probably a third would be gone the moment their current month ended. Of course, many would dribble back in over the next few years, but it would unleash a lot of bad blood and bitterness.
Terrestrial radio stations seem to have no problem competing while using the same chunk of bandwidth and methods of transmission. Why didn't the FCC draw up a standard for satellite radio band and transmission method? I mean.. I thought that's what the FCC's actual mission was.. Not to worry about Janet Jackson's nipples. I am probably never going to touch satellite radio because of the permanent Beta/VHS war they enacted. Last time I checked, there were an equal number of offerings on both services that I would be interested in. Even if I had to pay separate subscriptions to both companies, STANDARDIZE THE RADIOS. What were they thinking???
Simple answer then. Don't. At least all the stock sat radio units I've seen suck compared to any of the aftermarket ones you install. Even XM's entry level Roady has a better display that your stock GM radio
While I wasn't too keen in having to choose between Sirus and XM, the decision was really no different than choosing between an Xbox360, PS3, and Wii.
I hate to break it to you, but the tin foil hatter in you is uninformed.. Clear Channel has a sizable investment + content deals with XM, thus they aren't really losing much in the scheme of things. Advertising is what it is (media buys haven't really changed a whole lot) and Arbitron ratings are perpetually bs anyway. Clear Channel is effectively realizing revenue from XM that it would have not gotten otherwise, so it is merely an addition. Provided that the value of their 8.3 million shares has increased since obtaining them - that will also be more cash for the kitty.
The info below via Wikipedia:
Clear Channel programming agreement
As part of terrestrial radio giant Clear Channel Communications' early investment into XM in 1998, the companies entered into agreements which provided for certain programming and director designation arrangements as long as Clear Channel retained the full amount of its original investment in XM. One consequence of this was that XM had (and still has) exclusive programming rights to all Clear Channel content, including popular national shows like Glenn Beck and Coast to Coast AM. In June 2003, Clear Channel entered into a forward sales agreement relating to its ownership of XM. During the third quarter of 2005, Clear Channel and XM arbitrated the impact of this agreement on the Operational Assistance Agreement and the Director Designation Agreement. The Arbitration Panel decided that the Operational Assistance Agreement would remain in effect, including Clear Channel's right to receive a revenue share of commercial advertising on programming it provides to XM, but declined to enforce the Director Designation Agreement. Per the original agreement, Clear Channel has the right to program 409.6 kbit/s of XM bandwidth, including forcing XM to include commercial advertising. The current plans for this bandwidth will include up to 5 music channels including: XM11 Nashville!, XM21 KISS, XM22 Mix, XM24 Sunny, and the relaunch of WSIX on XM161 plus the existing talk channel programming (XM165 Talk Radio, XM152 Extreme XM, XM142 Fox Sports Radio, and XM173 WLW). Plans to introduce new regional based talk channels, which would have featured a local 2-3 minute newscast for each area of the country, were cancelled. The music channel advertising is expected to be limited to the 5-6 minute per hour maximum that was in place prior to XM taking its music channels commercial-free in 2004.
Seen as a blow to XM's 100% commercial-free music channel status, XM Executive Vice President of Programming Eric Logan released a programming announcement to XM subscribers on the company's website that reiterated XM's commitment to commercial-free music while noting that XM still had the most commercial-free music and that more commercial-free music channels will be added in the near future to ensure that XM will still have more commercial-free music than competitor Sirius Satellite Radio. On April 17, 2006, XM launched US Country (XM17), Flight 26 (XM26), XM Hitlist (XM30) and Escape (XM78) to provide commercial free music in the formats of the Clear Channel programmed music channels which were going to begin airing commercials. In response, Sirius has displayed that they are the only satellite radio provider that is 100% commercial free with music. Both XM and Sirius air commercials on their news, talk, and sports channels.
The Clear Channel forward sales agreement with Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc is set to expire in 2008, at which time Clear Channel is expected to deliver to Bear Stearns over 8.3 million shares in XM -- which is their original investment -- however Clear Channel withholds the right to settle with cash. If Clear Channel settles with shares, then it would be expected at that time that Clear Channels' Operational Assistance Agreement with XM would terminate, along with any and all programming provided by Clear Channel.
... or they're both going to die. I think there are some industries where mergers really need to happen, and this would be a good one. I don't see how it is efficient to maintain two satellite networks, with frequencies being wasted on providing the same exact service. I mean, it's very expensive to maintain that infrastructure in two places, so why not combine them? Eventually, the savings would be passed onto the consumer, because it's only in XM or Sirius's best interest to be in every car in the U.S. (by reducing costs).
Once the FCC figures out what the hell they are doing with frequency allocations, sattelite radio has a lot of future competition from land based sources. High speed cellular networks stream radio in your car on demand? Digital AM/FM? WiMax? TV broadcast towers transmitting digital audio stations? Any of these may become competitive in metro areas.
"Personally, I love my XM, and don't ever listen to local radio any more. More choice, less commercials..."
Wait a sec. I thought by purchasing the subscription, that eliminated the commercials. Why would I buy a special receiver and surrender yet another monthly subscription fee, just to listen to compressed audio that sounds worse than the mp3s I rip off my own cds? Even FM sounds better when the signal strength is good. Now HDFM is coming out in between the standard stations. And it's still free. All you need is a new receiver.
"Man is pre-eminently endowed with the power of voluntarily and consciously determining his own point of view." E. Mach
One is the lack of diversity. In most markets, you have 3 hip-hop stations, 4 country music stations, 2 top 40 rock stations, a classic rock and an oldies station. When you listen to these stations, you'll hear exactly what the recording companies want you to listen to. Its a 90 minute playlist that beats current hits into your head like Chinese water torture. If you want to hear anything outside of their playlist, you're just out of luck. Add to this that 90% of the stations in a particular market are owned by 2 or 3 companies basically out for profit and you can see there won't be much diversity.
Second, is all the commercials. I used to station surf all the time on my way into work. I truly believe that the reason you have 6 presets on your car radio is it takes that many presets to find a station doing something other than promotions and commercials. For most of the stations I used to listen to, you were lucky to get 25 minutes of music.
This is why XM really hit a chord with me. You can listen to a wide variety of music, not just 4 genries. You can listen to a station 6 hours and not hear the same song twice. And you can listen without commercial interruption!!
But lets face it, XM and Sirius are on the quick path to bankruptcy. Both companies are bleeding so much red ink that its unlikely they'll stay out of chapter 11 for more than another 18 months. The amount of money both have socked into exclusive programming like the NFL, major league baseball, Howard Stern, Oprah, etc means that to keep from going out of business, they'll have to dump a majority of this content. This is going to be a game of chicken to see who eventually caves first. My bet is that they'll both go under.
So this decision is one that the industry realizes is likely to doom both of them. The bottom line is that they only way either may survive is to salvage the best from both and create a single profitable company. Right now the only competition going on in satellite radio is to see who can stay out of bankruptcy the longest!
Isn't that the wireless technology that transmits only audio? No video, no data? How quaint is that?
Seriously. Wake me up when I can get streaming audio via WiMax in my car. What do you need a satellite for?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Who pays for radio? Seriously. I don't know anyone who's interested in either XM or Sirius because of that whole "pay $20 a month... to listen to radio". Listen to the free terrestrial radio. Listen to your own music. Listen to podcasts. Don't pay $20 to get told off by the RIAA.
It makes for really cheap entertainment.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
That can be fixed by the FCC. The FCC, when issuing the frequencies to the companies made sure they agreed not to merge. They are both losing money. They need to merge, but signed a contract that they wouldn't. The FCC would probably agree to a merger if they split from 2 vertically integrated competing companies into 3 de-integrated companies that were independent, but not competitors, as long as the standards were open and allowed new competitors as described by the grandparent. Allowing new competition into a failing industry couldn't hurt, as few want to jump onto a sinking ship. But it would let them merge the networks for reduced cost. If they turned it around and started making money, they couldn't gauge the consumers because competition would have easy access.
Learn to love Alaska
Small testimonial:
I've been a Sirius subscriber for years. Love the service. I got an Acura TL in 2005 that had XM pre-installed with no option to Sirius. So I gave the XM a shot while it was in it's 90 day trial. Oh my crap, XM is terrible. Their "jocks" sound like they're still running a college radio station complete with "uh", "um" and plenty of dead air. Aside from the fact that their encoding sounds like they're broadcasting from a tin can.
That was back in 2005 anyway.
I had/have Sirius in my other cars and have no such objections.
A merger would certainly kill Sirius just because of subscriber counts and that would, well, be the death of satellite radio for me because I rather hear nails on a chalkboard than XM.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
It's like someone pushed a newspaper under my door and the FCC said I cannot read it unless I pay a $99.95/month subscription.
No, it's not like that. A newspaper is an object. By it's very nature, the only place it is is where you put it.
Radio signals are not objects. When you broadcast a radio signal, by definition, it goes EVERYWHERE. That's what makes it useful.
If they don't want me to decode their signal, they shouldn't beam that signal at me.
OK, they don't want you to decode their signal, *AND* they aren't beaming it at you either. The signal is broadcast. It goes everywhere. Since your apparent reasoning is that you should be allowed to decode signals that are beamed at you, and the signal is not beamed at you, I guess we agree that you don't have any inherent right to decode the signal now, do you?
We really shouldn't be talking about decoding the signal in the first place. You're not prohibited from decoding the signal because there's something special about signals themselves. What is being protected is the programming. The satellite company or whoever is providing programming to authorized recipients. The means of transmission happens to be EM radiation. You're not allowed to receive programming transmitted by EM radiation that happens to go through your house any more than you're allowed to receive programming transmitted by cable that happens to be buried in your back yard. And that's a MUCH better example than your newspaper one - it's like a cable company ran a cable through your backyard, and the law requires that you actually pay for cable to decode the signal.
There's also another way to look at this. And that is, the radio spectrum in your house IS NOT YOURS. By decoding signals on spectrum that you don't own without the spectrum owner's permission, you're stealing their spectrum. Remember that owning land doesn't afford you unlimited property rights to all space above and below that surface. Some things - like air - are common, and radio spectrum is one of those things.
paintball
True, but the distinction I was going for was that PROGRAMMING was separated from RECEPTION. In TV, Programming is one group and transmission/reception is another group. In radio, programming and transmission is one group and reception is another group. Both cases you have two separate groups, and in both cases, you can get virtually all programming on your receiver.
In Satellite radio, programming/transmission/reception are all the same group, and as a result, you can only get half the programming on a given receiver.
paintball
I think it would be cool if China, in their next anti-satellite missle 'test' would knock Howard Stern's 'bird' out of the sky.
ClearChannel runs several XM streams, and XM has rights to ClearChannel programming.
This is uneducated speculation, and I have no idea what kind of tentacles XM and ClearChannel have into each other, but maybe the FCC is wary of a merger effectively handing satellite radio over to one megacorp. Then again, maybe not...
[Disclaimer: I'm a happy Sirius subscriber, but glad there's competition.]
This really isn't as dramatic as everyone is making it out to be.
Many of the satellite receivers on the market are hand held and work as a short range FM transmitter. Basically, you CAN have both units in your car. If you don't want the FM transmitter deal, there are plenty of 3rd party units which will work with either service (I have one, a Sony).
According to Sirius, they've moved from losing money to making money, so they don't need to do anything drastic to stay in business.
The exclusivity agreements are a pain in the ass, but it's not Stern or Oprah you're really missing out on. Stern has a ton of programming, but he's not for everyone, and Oprah's just there for promotions. For me the exclusivity of sports is the problem.
Good thing AM radio still exists... and the internet... and television... in the end, it's not really that exclusive.
I gotta say, I'm amazed that anybody would shell out even a nickel for radio. This just blows my mind. It's radio, WITH commercials. XM sounds tinny as hell, and seems to play only b-sides and unknown artists, and sirius sounds better but seems to be half commercials. I don't get it. The most popular radio stations are always local weather-traffic-news-sports-talk stations, neither sat service can give you relevant local info.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
There are commercials on the talk channels and on the Clear Channel music stations. XM has its own equivalent for each. To me XM is much more about the choice in music than the quality of the reception.
--Joey
...back when there was talk about DirectTV and Dish merging.
Trouble is, its short-term thinking that doesn't necessarily look at the long-term survival of either company.
Competition is good to keep existing monopolies from getting out of hand and abusing the customer base, but if, thanks to competition and high operating costs, *nobody* makes a profit, then the market itself will die. At worst. Otherwise, its whoever can keep the VC capital flowing until the other one dies, then the monopoly happens inevitably anyways.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
In fact, the tin foil hatter in me would probably suggest that big radio conglomerates like ClearChannel are actively lobbying behind the scenes to make sure that Sirius and XM can never join forces - in the hopes that they successfully kill them both, to allow re-entry into the market by those that missed the boat the first time.
Actually, my understanding is that ClearChannel is a heavy investor in HD-Radio, since most HD stations are co-owned by normal broadcast stations, but with national networking so some stations are the same no matter what HD-radio market you're in.
They want Satellite to die so that HD radio wins.
This is where the FCC misses the boat, just as they did with the DirectTV/Dish merger a few years ago. They think that the satellite monopoly will cause a price rise in satellite services, when in actuality there's already too much competition here on the ground to the point that satellite stuff will never be profitable.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Yeah, but he seemed to have a real high ground while he was married. Howard Stern the "Family Man" was the best thing he had to shoot down the critics.It made his edginess a bit more pointed(huh?) Now he's just another funny guy. Albeit a good one still.
What?
Sirius growth rate is much higher than XM. Sirius is looking good. Sirius is a success. All the experts said that Sirius needs about 1 1/2 million subscribers to be a success - they have 6 or 7 million. The company is doing well - out of the red.
Many people in here are complaining, saying they won't buy Sirius because of Stern - They don't know what the fuck they are talking about. They are just pissed off that he is off the 'free' air - now they have to pay to listen to him. Not buying a satellite system because of one of the channels? What about cable TV? There are porn channels if you want them! There are a lot of people here that think porn is a sin and will have nothing to do with it, yet they still PAY a cable company for service (a company who makes money off porn). This is totally on-topic --- can't you read between the lines?
Personally, I love my XM, and don't ever listen to local radio any more. More choice, less commercials...
Had it myself for over a year & I wouldn't trade it for any of the BS over-the-air stations anyplace in the US. I should know...was in "the business" for several years. Finally got out when the management wouldn't use industrial-quality vaseline anymore & got tired of being part of a VERY sub par product where the heavy-weight in the business is a fat gay druggie & owners who think the public are idiots. The prime example of this thinking is that contest in California with the Wii. Sure the announcers got fired...but management & the salespeople were the ones who made it happen. Didn't hear anything about the salespersons/managers getting fired. They were the ones that signed off on the deal for it to even go out on the air.
Commercial radio listening is dropping like so many "buggy whip manufacturers 3 year outlook" and they know damned well that Satellite is taking a big chunk.
You better believe they know & they are terrified. Before satellite radio...over-the-air radio knew they were the only game in town. A little competition comes into play...they start bawling about "leveling the playing field". Also hear this BS from cable TV operators wanting satellite TV users to pay "a tax" that equals what cable operators have you pay for their franchise fee in your monthly cable bill. The only flaw in their "logic"...my satellite TV doesn't cross right-of-ways or don't have to get the crappy signal as it's degraded from equipment down the road.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
The FM radio in your car can be built by anybody--the technology is essentially 'open source' in this sense. Therefore, the only income those stations have is from donations (yea, right) and by advertisers.
Just as cable has commercials (longer, more annoying) Sat radio has them too. There are many, many stations that are commercial free--but not all of them.
You are paying for a SERVICE--unfiltered, unFCC'd, unaltered content. That is the service they provide to you. You are not paying the broadcasting bills, that comes from the same source that it always has: Adverts. Even FM sounds better when the signal strength is good. Now HDFM is coming out in between the standard stations. And it's still free. All you need is a new receiver. Yea, which costs damn near 200 bucks, unless you buy a mickey-mouse external adapter that basically feeds the signal in through a special port... and then the radio can cost you 100 bucks, and the 'tuner' another 99.95.
Your logic defies your own self. A one-time-cost is still a cost. You are paying for it either way, it just depends on how long you keep the radio. If my radio breaks, i can buy another one for $30 and they will transfer my subscription for free. If my HD radio breaks, it's another $99 bucks.
Replace 'steal' for another angle. They don't want Sat radios, as they don't work for much longer than they can steal them. HD radios they can re-sell almost as fast as they can steal them.
But above all that, the REAL reason HD radio is a crock--It's still governed by the FCC, which means that you are no longer able to listen to the whole song/radio/talk because it isin't up to you. It's up to a suit who dosen't want to be annoyed by all the stay-at-home moms of the world who have nothing better to do than bitch about how a boob was shown on TV for nary a second, yet will defend the right to brestfeed in public.
And that my good sir, is the reason I WILLINGLY PAY for my Sat radio. I want all the music, and none of the bleeps.
I didn't see it anywhere, but perhaps I searched for the wrong words.
But what does the FCC have to say about it other than the frequency usage? If anything, merging would free up spectrum. I don't get how the FCC has any say in this whatsoever.
Money that is to buy the FCC. Try again next year... They can be bought, just the price tag is high.
Have had XM for over a year. Plus...if you have DirecTV...they're your music provider as well. Since I don't have Dish or Sirius...can't tell you about their service. What I can tell you is this...if you want to listen to their music & some of the uncensored comedy offerings on XM...you can for $7.95 a month for their web feed. That way...you don't have to buy their hardware & you can hear the same stuff I pay my $12.95 a month to hear.
Like Wolfman Jack & Casey Kasem...they're on there as well from their old broadcasts. Don't know of any over-the-air station which is playing the classics from the era when radio was great. Love hearing them in their glory days...but it does make me feel SO OLD.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
You'd think they could allocate a little more bandwidth to each channel so they don't sound like pure compression artifacts.
The NFL prefers the one service that pays the most.
Just like NASCAR - show them the money, and they'll jump ship the picosecond their contract is up. They don't give a rats dusty arse about their fans...
I'd never listened to talk radio in my life, but, got hooked on it, station WWL. Now...I listen to local talk radio virtually all the time to see what the politicos are trying to do down here...for Saint's talk...etc.
If that sucks...I just switch on the CD changer....
I've listened to Satellite radio in friends' cars....and while I did enjoy the comedy channels....I can't really figure that I'd use it much. I'm more interested in local events....and if I want to listen to music I like...I can go a LONG time in between hearing repeats in my music collection....especially once I hook in an iPod, and play that through my car stereo.
What could sat. radio offer to me I wonder? Especially if I had to pay for it....hmm....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Apparently Satellite Radio is also 'governed' by the FCC...since it is the body that mandated that XM and Sirus couldn't merge.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hawaii is waaaaay out in the sidelobes for the satt radio transponders, so it's a moot point for us. I've been quietly amused to note the portable XM units the Kahului Sears has sitting forlornly back near the boomboxes. Perhaps a bargain-hunting visitor could work a deal with the sales staff. The capability came standard with my wife's hybrid. Too bad we couldn't get a credit to delete it.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I'm an XMer because of the Indie channel (The Verge, Unsigned before that) and from what I have seen Sirius doesn't have that kind of local (Canadian) coverage, and Sirius 26 trys too hard (much like XM's Ethel.) After I heard some Opie and Anthony though, I was 100% a XM fan. I'd be shocked to find out that Anthony (Gamer, R/C Heli pilot, geek all around) didn't already have a /. account somewheres.
Also, my Inno is tiny and special. Hardware for XM is a +1.
I think the word the grandparent was looking for was "censored." Of course, the FCC can't censor content, so what the GP really wanted to say was, "Allowed by the FCC to broadcast whatever they want at the risk of enormous fines for inappropriate content."
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Place the blame on the manufactuers.
Once there was DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, etc, war.
Manufactuers came up with a great idea of have a device that would read and write both. War over, all products play nice now.
GM could make their Delco AM/FM/HD-Radio/XM/Sirius/CD/MP3 all in one car radio. Let the owner decide. But if it is a turf war between them and the manufacuteres and who is allowed to make the receiving device, then their business stinks and I don't care what happens to them.
Having listened to both XM and Sirius. I don't know what all the fuss is. It sounds like 96kb encoded mp3s from 1995 to me. And every overpass in phoenix in slow traffic kills the signal completely. Worse than listening to an 96kb mp3 over a 56k connection to AOL through winamp.
agreed.
It IS possible to make a radio that will receive BOTH services.
Niles Audio (http://www.nilesaudio.com) makes a whole house audio system that let's you pick
your audio sources a-la-cart. Plug in source cards are available
for BOTH XM and Sirius radio, as well as digital HD AM/FM, analog AM/FM,
iPod, as well as a card that interfaces to ANY external audio source
with full IR control. (Yes I work for Niles)
I'm not aware of any auto radios that can receive both services, but you
could always just get two portable satellite receivers and hook them to your
in dash radio via an FM modulator.
What would happen if one of the two services goes bankrupt and fails? The remaining one would unintentionally become a monopoly...
Living With a Nerd
"Still, I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes pre-installed, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both."
One has ClearChannel (i. e. the reason you're looking to leave terrestrial radio broadcasts to begin with) and one doesn't. One would involve giving more money to ClearChannel, one wouldn't.
Opie and Anthony are the real reasons to own a satellite radio service. That would of course be XM Sat Radio.
:)
Cant forget Ron and Fez
I guess you can't type AM/FM
or maybe it was the quotes... AM/FM" AM/FM".
Anyhow the line where is says the would stick to ". should have AM / FM at the end! Thanks!
Still, I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes pre-installed, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both.
As long as there remains a practical way to get neither, I'm set.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Whatever happed to the "common chipset" used in both radio models that was to allow the consumer to access both services from one radio unit? I recall hearing about this several years ago and still have yet to see said radio unit appear for purchase.
It's similar to VHS vs. beta for the consumer-which technology will win in the marketplace (quality issues notwithstanding)--if one can receive both comapnies' signals in one radio, the "format war" could be over...
I don't want radio at all, much less by subscription. Podcasts let me listen on my schedule, to exactly what i want to listen to. Currently, that's books, short SciFi stories, and science centering on astronomy. In my queue is an astronomy course.
And, i don't want to listen to these just in my car. So all i want in my car is an amp with an Aux-in jack. Not even AM. I don't want a hard disk or anything in the car. That's just more to manage. When i listen to something on my mp3 player, i want to be able to delete it from there if that's what i want. I don't want two places to do that.
-- Stephen.
The same could be said for the Internet.
spectrum use NEEDs to be regulated by the goverment (the alternative is a "who can shout loudest" type compertition. This will waste huge ammounts of energy , bring all existing systems which are built to be power frugal to thier knees and generally fuck up wireless communications for everyone) to thier knees and thier are far too many customers for congress to handle that directly.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Not to sound like a Hybrid Digital Fanboi for FM radio, but single radio frequencies can send multiple streams. So you can have 106.5 channel 1 2 3 4, now maybe with the technology curve (hardware gets cheaper eventually) and putting demand on radio stations (they are in your local towns) you might hear something different on any number of those other stations, like Radiohead songs that aren't Creep. Plus these stations are local so you can call them and make suggestions, especially since they are the "public airways" they are using =). These next few years are going to be a doozy with respect to the technology consumer. BLU-RAY/HD-DVD the move to HD tv, Introduction of HDFM, XM and Sirius (they're going to die if the FCC does not let them merge) not to mention DRM integrated into hardware.
I love Terrestrial Radio, because I love to think I can go down to Radioshack (I really wish there were some other place to get jacks and transistors) buy me some parts and plug it to some speakers and hear music or news or talk w/o breaking the law. In my head this is really turning into one of those "free" arguments (free as in freedom & free as in beer). Open source all technology, and watch it grow as well as our understanding of it. I need more coffee.
-You have been modded appropriately-
remove the second "to thier knees"
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Dude, if those are two tastes you are deciding between, you must be really fucked up. Or married. I tend to glom them into the same category, but alas ...
The real reason I don't subscribe to one or the other is cause I don't want to put up $15 a month. I get Sirius music channels over Dish Satellite, and I love one station so much (Sirius Chill) that I don't know what I would do if Dish ever stopped offering them. I can't bring myself to pay $15 a month for just one station.
I think the stations could subsidize the costs if they were to offer an MP3 download service to complement the channels. Short of buying the entire album, I can't even find the songs I like available for download (legal or otherwise). The music industry needs to start catering to the non-top-40 crowd a little if they really want to turn their fortunes around. I had given up on ever finding new music again before Sirius. Now that I have, I wish I could find a way to purchase it (although I will never go back to buying entire albums for one song).
So why haven't we already seen an auto manufacturer put BOTH systems into their cars as a feature? That'd take care of the problem completely.
All this bullshit about needing "partners"... screw that, make a dual-receiver for both systems that can be installed in every car in your line and the problem is gone for your car's customers forever, and you'll build brand loyalty from the folks who are thankful for having a choice again.
+++OK ATH
"If it were ethical, portions of the radio spectrum would be handed out..."
That has nothing at all to do with ethics. Judging by your posting history however, it's no surprise that you are unaware of what "ethics" means.
Well, at least as far as recordable media is concerned. Evidentaly the case against XM, regarding their recording mobile unit will proceed. I liked the possibility of having an MP# player filled with new stuff I heard on XM, but I guess it'll never happen. Hooray for the FCC and the RIAA. Check it out here: http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseac tion=Articles.san&s=54217&Nid=26769&p=409224.
Monopolies on things people NEED are bad. People need oil, people need phone service (now anyway), people need news reports from varied sources, people don't NEED satellite radio service. Its a subscription only private service. If you dont have it, your not going to be effected in the slightest vs people who do have it. The FCC doesn't even have a reason to stop this from occuring except that they hate the fact that they cant censor the contect. Its simply vindictive behaviour from a man who leads the FCC poorly only because he was placed in the position by his relation to other members in the white house, and not because he has any actual qualifications. This sort of monopoly means nothing. Sirius for one, has no premium channels. They offer no premium services. They have 1 pricing model. Thats it. They make very little money on the hardware, (much like game console manufacturers) and live exclusively off of the subscription fees they get for ACTUALLY providing a service. Thats real. Thats an actual company that does more than shuffle papers. I love sirius. They stand unique in the business world. They have never fucked anyone over to get where they are. They aren't Microsoft. They aren't Sony. They do what they do, and they try to make money. If they piss someone off, all the person has for recourse is to stop using thier service. They have roughly 3 million subscribers. Comparatively thats NOTHING over the populations of the US and Canada. So who would a merger hurt? If anything it would spurn a 3rd company to come into the market, which would be WIDE open. You got me.
Annual revenue at BOTH companies is doubling, tripling, and sometimes even quadrupling year-over-year. On top of that, operating expenses in the satellite biz are somewhat a sunk cost...your expenses don't really go up as your subscriber count does. There's plenty of room for two companies in satellite radio. Satellite radio is just BEGINNING its "well-known" phase...I think I've seen my first satellite radio tv commercials within the past few months actually. Not to mention all the intensive pushes at retail joints and car company packages.
I mean, both Sirius and XM just hit cash flow break even. I see no signs of the satellite radio market slowing down...do you?
What I love about satellite radio is that they have several stations serving up more niche genres that rarely, if ever, get played on the air. XM42 is a good example. It plays the metal bands that are too heavy to get FM radio air play. You'll never hear bands like Vampire Moose or Crowbar or Sky Eats Airplane or Goatwhore on the broadcast airwaves. The same goes for XM 80-84, the electroica channels. Except for the rare few dance tracks that do get really popular, most of the stuff on those channels will never get any FM air play. Channels 42 and 81 just happen to be the two channels I listen to the most, but there are plenty of other niche genres covered out there which rarely get played on FM, especially in smaller markets such as where I live. That right there makes XM worth the money to me. Well, that and no commercials.
Now if I can just get them to put the progressive rock station back on the air...
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.