Slashdot Mirror


XM And SIRIUS Radio Merging

lenny6998 writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that XM and Sirius Radio, the only two major players in the relatively new market of subscription satellite radio have announced a merger. "The two companies said in a statement that Mel Karmazin, the CEO of Sirius, would become chief executive of the new company while Gary Parsons, the chairman of XM, would remain in that role."

10 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Egos by airos4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, it didn't work so well when one terrestrial company tried to contain the three of them. WNEW had them all at once, and O&A were treated as the little stepbrothers who were slapped with gag orders and so on regarding talking about Howard. I foresee tension in the Force.

    On another note, how will this work hardware-wise? Can they in fact offer one united channel selection over any current hardware? Will they continue to offer two separate "branded" offerings that each go to the proprietary radios until new hardware can be rolled out?

    --
    I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
  2. Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002. by WarlockD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry, I use it ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Ask any trucker if they will part with their Satellite radio.

    I drive close to 300 miles a week in the DFW area and local radio stations just don't have enough content to keep me intrested. Except for a few talk shows that I listen to, I need a sat radio to keep sane.

    Yes, I do have an ipod loaded to the gills with music, but to be frank, without Satellite, I wouldn't have any NEW content to keep me awake.

  3. business model? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The thing everyone forgets is that monopoly isn't the problem: it's the abuse of monopoly to unfairly control a market.

    XM and Sirius have so far both struggled for customers for several reasons, not the least of which being problems of customer awareness. Many people simply don't know - and won't learn without extensive research - which network would be better for them (in terms of content, quality and price). People are used to having one radio "network", expecting competitors to just be different channels. The idea of two separate networks with non-interoperable hardware just isn't what people want.

    The question is how this new hybrid company (I love the AT&T joke...) will shape its new business model: if no other satellite companies emerge, will they offer channels 'for rent' to other content providers? Will they continue to own all channels? Etc.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  4. Re:Huh? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you look at the combined content of the separate companies, there is a lot of duplication of effort. Each provider has some exclusive content, but the majority of content is duplicated. There is also 2x the infrastructure, 2x the personnel, 2x the billing systems, etc. Well, it may not be exactly 2x but you get the idea. By combining the two, you combine the customer base yet cut the overall operational budget. Thus the bottom line is improved. There could also conceivably be some added advantages of freeing up bandwidth. Or they could sell of the radio spectrum too.

    Nothing will be decided probably until at least years end. Even if they get approval, it will take some time to also figure out the technical details as to who's equipment to go with, who gets laid off, etc. Actual savings probably won't be seen for several years, but if indeed they do merge, the cost of competition gets a lot cheaper in a hurry.

  5. Re:What changes? by GrayCalx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree with you. I'm a XM subscriber (because I like Opie and Anthony) but having come FROM a Sirius subscription, I enjoy Sirius' music channels TONS more than what XM offers. Hopefully this is a chance for me to get the music of Sirius with the Talk programming of XM, but we'll see.

    I read an article that stated they may be able to offer al la' carte programming where you pick and choose which channels you get. I hope that comes through as well. I'd pick 10 and hopefully pay less... but you know thats not going to happen.

  6. Yeah Capitalism by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We now have another monopoly with little chance of any kind of alternative as the barrier to entry is so high. I trust this means that there will be less content available than ever before. You'll only hear what's "popular" (ie. what they want you to buy this week). I'm just waiting for ClearChannel to buy the new company. Fortunately the only experience I've ever had with satellite radio is via DirecTV (another near monopoly that's hard to avoid if your local cable outlet sucks ass). Before they started touting their affiliation with XM, DirecTV used to have some "Digital Radio" channels. They were actually pretty good. Then the XP partnership happened and those channels were replaced with godawful crap.

    My wife used to love the 80s music channel they had under the old system. But now they replaced that with "Ethel" or "Fred" or somesuch, and it sucks ass. The selection isn't as good as it used to be. And invariably they wind up throwing in stuff that doesn't even fit. The "80s" channel they have now has a "wider" definition (ie. only what they consider to be 80s instead of what was REALLY definitive 80s) of 80s in that it doesn't just feature punk and new wave stuff like the old one. Now they throw in all sorts of things (some of which aren't even 80s) that are vaguely "alternative" with the occasional crap country song thrown in. My guess is that since country is such a popular format (even though it sucks ass in my opinion) they are hoping that by dropping in an occasional tune, they might get some new buyers from people on the fence.

    Yet another annoying factor is that the old system used to tell you on screen what was currently playing and which album it was from. It was very informative. The new system just gives you a little info and 90% of the time it's completely wrong. If that's what XM is like, then they can shove it. I hope they die a spectacular death because music lovers don't want satellite or subscription radio. Music lovers want a smörgåsbord of endless new and old music that is either thrown in as a "freebie" or totally free. And if the selection is varied enough, THEN and ONLY THEN will the music lover plunk down the cash for the goods. That's the way I roll. I listen to college radio and the BBC via the net (and I'm approaching 40) because in many markets it's the only place to hear good new music. If it's good enough, I check and see if eMusic has it and download it. If not, then I get it from Amazon on CD. Satellite radio is only for boring old people who still think Cadillacs are cool looking cars or who think they're being radical when they buy a modern Volkswagen Beetle. LastFM is about the only other option, but I fear that it will be pounced on by the big players and hence ruined once they reach a certain critical mass.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  7. Re:Guess it was just a matter of time... by DevoPhl · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Sirius went to commercial free music channels rather early on. XM still have a majority of its music channels with limited commericals but dropped them about 2 years ago.

    Its clear that XM and Sirius were in competition for a limited market. The iPod in the end was what brought these two together. XM and Sirius had a small window before cars started installing adapters for iPods. Since almost everyone who listens to music has a iPod, it meant that the benefits of satellite radio where lost when you could just plug in your iPod.

    Whereas the two radio networks were counting on subscriptions continuing to increase each year for the next 4 years, in reality, they started leveling off this year. And now they have a business model based on a subscription base neither is likely to meet.

    As a result, I think we'll see one of two things out of the new company. Either a substantial rate increase or a substantial content decrease. At any rate, its unlikely that the new company will have the variety of content that we see on both today.

  8. Re:Radio is a coercive monopoly by lc0h0lPr3p · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My town has a low power FM station and I wish it didn't. They play terrible soft jazz, don't provide any way to contact them and don't take requests. Low power FM is going to clutter up a limited spectrum with 1 man ego projects. At least with a commercial station I can request a change of songs or buy it. Low power FM is actually less responsive than the all evil Clearchannel!

  9. Re:Gettin' it free! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Holy crap a revolution! I get my radio for FREEEEEE!

    I hate those stupid ads - are they a Clearchannel specialty? - about not paying for something you can get for free. Well, where I live, I have the choice of Clearchannel Pop, CC Rock, CC Country 1-5, and CC "greatest hits of 80s, 90s, and now". So, I opted for Sirius to hear the great stuff I can't hear over the airwaves here.

    I'm too cheap to ever pay for anything I could get for free. I don't drink bottled water, but I do pay for satellite radio.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  10. Guess it was just a matter of time...and space by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    3. Satellite has a larger library than you probably have (likely so do the FM stations).


    Yes, FM may have a large library, but what good is it if they have unimaginative program directors who maintain limited playlists?

    When FM radio abandoned the wonderful idea of letting on-air deejays play whatever the hell they liked, they lost my interest.

    I love my mp3 player, but no matter how big the storage, I know what I've got, even with thousands of songs and shuffle. The beauty of radio is that you can be surprised. I would trade the knowledge that I will like everything I'm going to hear for the excitement of the occasional wonderful obscurity or cut from a musician I've never heard before.

    Before I grew a wife and daughter, I used to go to sleep with the local "underground"(!) FM station, NPR (when they still played music) or one of the TWO (!) classical stations we used to have here in Chicago playing softly. Once in a while I'd be wakened from a sound, stoned sleep because some stunning, unexpected bit of beauty was coming over the airwaves. Those experiences nurtured a lasting, ever-young love of music and of the unexpected. Even after the underground station morphed into a common "adult-oriented rock" format and one of the two great classical stations went out of business (WNIB) and I grew out of my fascination with cannabis, I will still occasionally give the micro-SD that goes into my mp3 (Sandisk) player to a friend onto which to put something he/she likes. The thrill of hearing something fresh and/or surprising gets my head up even better than the weed used to, with the added benefit of not finding empty ice cream or Entenmann's cartons on the coffee table in the morning.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.