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.
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!
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.
Is there anyone on the planet who wants to listen to BOTH Howard Stern AND Oprah?
No, but you could have two people, each who want to listen to one of the two, but who would also like to share a sattelite radio service.
How could such a mysterious circumstance come about? How should I know; I'm a slashdotter too.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Whether or not monopolies are "good for consumers" is irrelevant.
It's not government's place to care.
Actually anti-trust is one of the few legitimate places for the government to care. Fixing the fundamentally broken corner-cases of capitalism is a fine use of government power.
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.
Okay, maybe your idea of utopia is where all food manufacturers are bought by wal-mart and the contract you "choose" to sign with them is whatever the hell they want because your choice is to sign or starve to death, but for the rest of us sane people, I'd like to prevent that kind of thing even in its less extreme forms.
But thanks for once again reminding why despite feeling strongly affiliated with the principles of Libertarianism i could never, ever call myself one because of just how insane those principles are when taken to the extreme, and just how willing people are to take them to that extreme.
The enemies of Democracy are
It's a Science article because they won't let kdawson use the Enlightenment icon anymore.
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."
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
No, it's not--desirable end results are none of government's concern.
Well they're my concern, and unlike your hypothetical corporate-run universe, in my world the government works on my behalf. So yes, desireable end results are the governments concern.
Desirable end results are not a corporations concern, as what is desireable from the peoples' standpoint usually means less-than-ideal profit for the corporation.
Then you are pure evil and have no moral right to exist, because you are willing to endorse the wholesale violation of individual rights.
You only believe in the rights of those with the wealth to pay for them, and you're calling me evil? You endorse the wholesale enslavement of the populace in the name of corporate profit, dress it up as "individual rights" -- which to you means the right to own slaves, so long as they can be coerced into agreeing to it under pain of starvation -- and think you have a moral leg to stand on?
Lasse-Faire capitalism is the same as corporate dictatorship. One leads into the other as naturally as water running downhill. You will have no individual rights, because you will sign them away and become a slave to corporate-owned society -- or die. And this is what you wish for. Seriously, that's despicable.
The enemies of Democracy are
Bullshit. What a simple, knee-jerk, ad-hominem response. I cuold as easily say that you are evil because you advocate a system that will inevitably lead to economic feudalism. Chris' point is important: in all unregulated free markets, wealth invariably acumulates to the point where the poorest have no access to the means of supporting themselves, and must sign into unfair contracts in order to merely survive.
Let's look at the concept of rights. Outside of society, there are no rights. I repeat: individuals have no rights. They don't need them. Think about it, if you were alone on the planet, would the concept of rights even occur to you? No. It is only because we operate in a society that my right to swing my fist conflicts with your right not to be hit in the face.
All rights are a compromise, and a contract. You agree to do, or not to do something in exchange for the agreement that others will act similarly. Without the protection of others, your rights would be meaningless. There is no ultimate authority from which to derive a set of absolute rights. There is no natural law which all people will interperate the same way, arriving at the same list of rights. Therefore, rights are what we as a society mutually agree to uphold in each other. No more, no less.
What rights a society chooses to enforce are up to the members of that society. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. But you have no right to force the rest of us to enact your prefered social system. You have basically stated that you feel you have the right to kill those who don't agree with your definition of what rights are important. Good luck with that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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
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.
Don't like Stern? Don't listen to him. Besides, he's already been paid up. You're not giving him money. It's long history. The subscribership of Sirius paid stern off 8 months ago. He has a contract with Sirius for 5 years - he's been paid.
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.
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.
"Well they're my concern, and unlike your hypothetical corporate-run universe, in my world the government works on my behalf. So yes, desireable end results are the governments concern."
Not to get in the middle of this issue, but rather to ask a side question...
You couldn't actually have limited liability corporations without the government getting in the mix could you?
Partnerships, sure. Corporations as persons?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
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
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
...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
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.
If my memory is correct, I believe Sirius has about 60 commercials free channels.
" I'm amazed that anybody would shell out even a nickel for radio "
A similar argument could be made for cable or satellite television. But apparently 70+ million US cable and satellite subscribers want more TV channels then their local market provides over the air. Sure, more people enjoy television, but watching TV while commuting to work is a little dangerous not to mention illegal in many areas.
Sirius has about 135+ channels and provides a variety of different formats that are not available in my local market. I'm not a big Stern fan. I listen primarily to the dozen or so news/world/talk channels. Another thing I like is that Sirius provides two feeds (home and away) for all the NFL games.
I didn't choose Sirius over XM. The vehicle I bought new in '05 had the Siruis/Nav/CD setup and included a 12 month free subscription. When I bought it, I had no intention of continuing the service after the free 12 months. But after a year, I like it and it works for me.
People shell out money for all sorts of different things. Some want 30/5 FIOS where as others are content with dial-up. Some choose cable, some are happy with local over-the-air channels. Some choose fancy wireless data plans, and some people won't even spent money to get a cell phone. Some choose the dating scene, other choose prostitutes. Oh wait... Anyway the point is, to each his own...