Slashdot Mirror
Sirius, XM Merger Gets FCC Approval
Multiple readers, including koavf, have written to tell us the FCC has finally approved the Sirius-XM merger that has been in the works for quite a while now. CNN has picked up AP coverage as well. We discussed approval of the merger by the Justice Department a few months ago. From CNN:
"The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to approve the buyout, with the tiebreaker coming Friday night from Republican commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin confirmed the final vote Friday night. 'I think it's going to be, in the end, a good thing for consumers and be in the public interest,' he told The Associated Press."
Of course, the merger comes with strict conditions to keep things in the public interest.
Conditions like the conditions XM and Sirius were originally given when they were granted space on the spectrum. Conditions such as "these two companies may never, ever be allowed to merge".
NO CARRIER
How could a single, monopolistic provider of a service, nationwide, be "a good thing for consumers and be in the public interest" ????
Has Orwellian doublespeak progressed so far??
Because Satellite Radio is not a monopoly; it is competing against FREE terrestrial radio, mp3 players, ipods, FREE internet radio, etc.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
See kids, this is why you shouldn't say "first post", even if you think you are...
When I think of satellite radio, I think of this:
*Major genres unrepresented.
*Station playlists that would become predictable within a week.
*Sub-genres within all genres utterly unrepresented in general (for example, one Metal station on all of Sirius, and it only plays death metal).
*A whole slew of stations essentially devoted to playing the exact same stuff that you hear on standard Top 40 radio.
*Commercials, despite being advertised as commercial-free.
*Annoying DJs (the receivers display the name/artist playing, you do NOT need DJs trying to be funny between every song).
*Oh, and a monthly fee on top of that.
Frankly, satellite radio was created 10 years too late. Why should I put up with satellite radio when I can use my mp3 player?
Its good because they were both unprofitable. Hopefully after the merger they will be able to be solvent. Satellite radio is awesome, whether anyone realizes it or not. There is NO CENSORSHIP WHAT-SO-EVER. I'd repeat some of the things said here, but I think my ISP would object. The company suits do not make music selections, unlike any other radio station on earth. No static, unlimited range, an entire channel dedicated to the grateful dead. Chill, house, ambient, thrash metal, punk, bluegrass, three types of jazz all at your finger tips, and even if you hate music they have a top 40 station, a brittish top 40 station, and a couple Canadian channels.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
In the beginning, there were a lot more ads on satellite radio. One of the two companies (I forget which) decided to focus on ad-free music channels; amazingly, the other company reduced the number of channels with ads as well. Post-merger, I'm concerned that Big Satellite (B.S.) will finally take aim at the terrestrial market. With only one satellite service type, how long until we see automobiles that come with a free B.S. receiver but the terrestrial receiver (AM/FM) costs extra? To me, though, it comes down to the apparent difference between Republican and Democratic oversight: Republicans reject regulations unless a direct fault can be seen (well, satellite competes with terrestrial, so it's not a monopoly) whereas Democrats demand regulations unless a direct fault can be guaranteed not to happen (well, they could become a monopoly, so forbid them from merging). I'm curious how much the FCC could "change" this decision in a year, should the executive branch return to Democratic hands.
Its probably still better than the Terrestrial radio I recall from the last time I went through the area.
This is not the funny you're looking for.
I had considered XM radio then the merger rumors started to fly so I held back. The problem I have is supporting content I strongly dislike. I can't stand Howard Stern. Yes I know he's God to some people but it reminds me of high school and I escaped from that place a long time ago. I was thrilled when he went satellite but it did drop Sirus off the options list. Now if I get satellite period I have to help pay his over sized paycheck for being annoying. I realized most reading this are likely to be fans but he creeps me out. One of the reasons for preventing monopolies is to give you options. You get to vote with your money. My only vote left is to not financially support satellite radio and hope it goes away. Not much of a choice involved. Far more important than ala cart cable we need ala cart satellite radio. Then everyone has options. There are plenty of Sternies to keep him afloat and I can have my rock stations. I competely agree about DJs and I thought the point of Satellite was to avoid them as well as commercials? DJ are there to save a buck no matter what they claim. Their mindless chatter is cheaper than playing music. I'm stuck in Phoenix now and when I drive back to LA I notice a massive difference. Here there's at least half the air time that is DJs and commercials with little actual music. Two thirds is music in LA. If I'm paying a fee can't we have at least a handful of rock stations and not have a bloody playlist?
Why did the FCC only grant two satellite licences? It's not like there's limited bandwith. Now that Sirius and XM merge and the FCC still doesn't allow new satellite companies there's no competition at all.
Ultimately this will benefit the consumer. I've subscribed to both companies and my preference is for talk radio/sports. The competition for paid subscribers forced the 2 companies to continually one-up each other for exclusive content and caused problems for me when one company would win the contract from another at renewal time (nascar, baseball, etc.) At one point I had to give up programming I enjoyed listening too or pay for a second receiver with a second subscription in order to keep it.
In the last few years, I've noticed the quality of the programming has deteriorated considerably as well. Once the companies are merged, all the duplicate costs for talent, administration, customer service, etc. should be eliminated and hopefully benefit the customers with a much improved service. My understanding is that nobody will even need to buy new hardware as the channels will be combined on your existing radio.
This is not a monopoly in the sense that we cannot get similar service from another provider. If you find satellite too expensive, or don't like what they have too offer, then get rid of it and listen to terrestrial radio, or your ipod, mp3 player, etc.
What I would be more concerned about than anything else to do with this merger is the question why did this take so long to pass? Oil companies have merged in a fraction of the time with minimal resistance compared to this one!
A single satellite radio company is not really a "single, monopolistic provider of a service, nationwide" though. It's a direct competitor of traditional radio. It also competes with mp3 players and podcasts, CD's, audio books, etc. If they started any sort of monopolistic practices, people can just cancel their subscriptions and choose a multitude of other audio distribution methods. The justice department spent over a year investigating the issue and ruled that it would not in fact be a monopoly.
The two companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year. At this point it may not be a question of two satellite radio companies or one, it's one company or none. And the "approval" is not a straight approval, it would require them to set aside a quarter of their bandwidth for their direct competitors. Which brings up an interesting point. Who has forced this issue to be delayed through various government agencies over the last two years? The National Association of Broadcasters. Not some consumer interest group, but an organization representing some of the largest companies in the country, who will be hurting most from this decision. Not because it's creating a monopoly, but because it has the potential to break the attempted (and FCC approved) monopolies of its clients in regional markets.
When you can stream a seemingly unlimited supply of internet radio straight to most connected devices, like the iPhone for one...
satellite radio seems almost quaint. How long will it be before "internet radio" puts satellite radio totally out of business?
BTW, for iPhone and iPod touch users, here's a good place to start:
http://www.seeqpod.com/
If you just want a radio gadget, there seem to be a few good ones available now:
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=portable%20internet%20radio
Of course with these you can't play "kill your battery" using them over a 3G network... but then there's always the next thing..
Operator, give me the number for 911!
I don't necessarily agree with Stern, just adding some relevant info.
For crap's sake, their competition has hardly changed since they came out with their product - radio and TV aren't getting any "more free" after all and my internet bill has yet to go down.
Aside from the arrival of HD Radio, the explosion of ipods and MP3 players, and Internet Radio, you're right.
Last, from TFA: "The companies said they would introduce radios that receive both XM and Sirius channels." If memory serves, they said the same 10+ years ago. Can someone tell me why companies are allowed (seemingly encouraged) so often to act like petulant 5 year olds?
Given neither Sirus nor XM were broadcasting until 7-8 years ago, I'm not sure how you could have heard that, or thought they would make compatible radios.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but translated that means in at most another 10 years, SeriousExcem is already going to have to start replacing these satellites. Of course, none of the existing satellites will have a problem in the mean time.
That's why at least XM and I think Sirius have launched new satellites recently, and yea, the life expectancy is about 20 years. So what?
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Oh well that's different! They agreed to pay their fines! We should give them a reward for being such good little boys.
And when I go downtown to pay my speeding ticket I expect nothing less than a thank-you card and a candybar.
What's WRONG with these people?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Depends on how close is the substitution. If Ford was the only company making cars, and the other options were walking and horses, they'd be a monopoly. If Ford ward the only company making SUVs, but you could buy cars and minivans from other sources, it wouldn't be a monopoly in any meaningful sense of the word.
Apple is the only company making Macs, but they don't have a meaningful monopoly because you can always use a PC.
-- Support a free market in the field of government