Sirius and XM to Merge!!!

[southsider2k5]

There is only one problem with this merger... both companies have it written into their licences that they can't merge with the other company.

 

I don't know how they plan on getting around that, but its there.

[Texsox]

Didn't DirectTV and Dish try to merge a few years back? I thought that was turned down.

[kapkomet]

There is only one problem with this merger... both companies have it written into their licences that they can't merge with the other company.

 

I don't know how they plan on getting around that, but its there.

Right and that was one of the FCC staples. The FCC has to rule and accept this merger, but it will probably happen.

[Texsox]

I was just reading one article that pointed out that both companies are losing money. that should work in there favor.

[southsider2k5]

I was just reading one article that pointed out that both companies are losing money. that should work in there favor.

 

They will have problems with the whole monopoly, no competition thing though. I am sure if they agreed to the merger, they know something we don't. I doubt they would put this much time and money into something, without reasonable expectations of it success. Damn, I think I just described the 2006 Cubs season in a nutshell!

[Texsox]

They will have problems with the whole monopoly, no competition thing though. I am sure if they agreed to the merger, they know something we don't. I doubt they would put this much time and money into something, without reasonable expectations of it success. Damn, I think I just described the 2006 Cubs season in a nutshell!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I was just reading one article that pointed out that both companies are losing money. that should work in there favor.

That's the cost reduction factor I mentioned earlier, and it will undoubtedly be a major argument they will make to get it done.

 

 

The only difference is delivery method, plus the consumer still has the option to pay zero and receive over the air content. Add in Podcasts, etc. and I could see it passing

Delivery is not the only difference. Its a whole different product, different content, different hardware. Its paid service for one, not free. For two, its hundreds of channels of audio, not 15. There are other differences as well.

 

The closest analogy is cable and regular TV (though that is still not a perfect comparison for a few key reasons). Sure, people turn on a TV in any case, and yeah, its AV signals they are receiving. But look what happened with cable TV, and satelite. In both cases, the government is forcing competition, because markets with one cable company are getting screwed on rates. The same thing will happen here. Once SiriuXM gets their market to where 50%+ of people have it (like cable/satelite TV), the rates will start to skyrocket. That's the nature of a monopoly. And in the case of radio, since you need different devices and have entirely different content, I'd suggest that satelite radio is much more seperate as a market from conventional radio, than cable TV is from network TV. Therefore, again, more argument that its a monopoly.

 

Seems hard to believe that the FCC would want to create a monster like that, which they would have to break apart later anyway.

[Texsox]

I'm guessing eventually there would be a tiered structure like cable TV. Eliminate the overlap in music stations and offer premium packages which mix both stations offerings. Maybe a-la cart sports programming.

[jasonxctf]

just think if the justice department allowed AT&T and SBC to merge, why not XM and Sirius.

[NorthSideSox72]

just think if the justice department allowed AT&T and SBC to merge, why not XM and Sirius.

Because there are still a number of other telcos.

[jasonxctf]

i cant think of any right now.. maybe Verizon.. MCI is long gone. Then you've got a boatload of really small players who dont even advertise in my area.

 

The one thing I can think of that spun post AT&T/SBC merger was that Comcast now offers phone service through VOIP.

 

Which may be XM/Sirius's answer to the monopoly question. There are plenty of pay-radio stations on the net, (and some freebies) that could compete in certain areas.

[Texsox]

That's the cost reduction factor I mentioned earlier, and it will undoubtedly be a major argument they will make to get it done.

 

 

 

Delivery is not the only difference. Its a whole different product, different content, different hardware. Its paid service for one, not free. For two, its hundreds of channels of audio, not 15. There are other differences as well.

 

The closest analogy is cable and regular TV (though that is still not a perfect comparison for a few key reasons). Sure, people turn on a TV in any case, and yeah, its AV signals they are receiving. But look what happened with cable TV, and satelite. In both cases, the government is forcing competition, because markets with one cable company are getting screwed on rates. The same thing will happen here. Once SiriuXM gets their market to where 50%+ of people have it (like cable/satelite TV), the rates will start to skyrocket. That's the nature of a monopoly. And in the case of radio, since you need different devices and have entirely different content, I'd suggest that satelite radio is much more seperate as a market from conventional radio, than cable TV is from network TV. Therefore, again, more argument that its a monopoly.

 

Seems hard to believe that the FCC would want to create a monster like that, which they would have to break apart later anyway.

 

Another key area that it is different is the TV industry was/is producing profits. How will the public be served if one or both were to go out of business?

[NorthSideSox72]

Which may be XM/Sirius's answer to the monopoly question. There are plenty of pay-radio stations on the net, (and some freebies) that could compete in certain areas.

Any agreement may contain just that sort of condition - XsiriuM would need to put X number of local radio slots in their network, or something like that.

 

 

Another key area that it is different is the TV industry was/is producing profits. How will the public be served if one or both were to go out of business?

I guess this is where I tend more towards open competition than others. To me, looking at the alternatives of a monopoly and those two going bankrupt... I think the public is better served with the latter. Ultimately, just like Motorola's Iridium project, someone else will pick up the hardware and put it to market, probably more efficiently.

[southsider2k5]

Any agreement may contain just that sort of condition - XsiriuM would need to put X number of local radio slots in their network, or something like that.

I guess this is where I tend more towards open competition than others. To me, looking at the alternatives of a monopoly and those two going bankrupt... I think the public is better served with the latter. Ultimately, just like Motorola's Iridium project, someone else will pick up the hardware and put it to market, probably more efficiently.

 

Maybe this would fit better in the random facts thread, but on 9-11 when all other cellular technologies were failing for lack of a tower, it was the Iridium based technology that was actually still working.

[Rex Kickass]

That's the cost reduction factor I mentioned earlier, and it will undoubtedly be a major argument they will make to get it done.

Delivery is not the only difference. Its a whole different product, different content, different hardware. Its paid service for one, not free. For two, its hundreds of channels of audio, not 15. There are other differences as well.

 

The closest analogy is cable and regular TV (though that is still not a perfect comparison for a few key reasons). Sure, people turn on a TV in any case, and yeah, its AV signals they are receiving. But look what happened with cable TV, and satelite. In both cases, the government is forcing competition, because markets with one cable company are getting screwed on rates. The same thing will happen here. Once SiriuXM gets their market to where 50%+ of people have it (like cable/satelite TV), the rates will start to skyrocket. That's the nature of a monopoly. And in the case of radio, since you need different devices and have entirely different content, I'd suggest that satelite radio is much more seperate as a market from conventional radio, than cable TV is from network TV. Therefore, again, more argument that its a monopoly.

 

Seems hard to believe that the FCC would want to create a monster like that, which they would have to break apart later anyway.

 

They don't have to break anything apart. They can grant another satellite broadcasting license. But the truth is that satellite radio is an additional technology. It doesn't replace anything and probably won't. As long as the radio technology makes it difficult for people to have an account for multiple radios in one place, we won't ever have to worry about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

They don't have to break anything apart. They can grant another satellite broadcasting license. But the truth is that satellite radio is an additional technology. It doesn't replace anything and probably won't. As long as the radio technology makes it difficult for people to have an account for multiple radios in one place, we won't ever have to worry about it.

One problem with simply granting another license - the cost of entry, the "moat" if you will, for satelite radio is enormous. Way, way, way, way, way higher than conventional radio. So the only way new licensure is not ridiculously costly is if one of the existing businesses goes into bankruptcy, and the hardware can be bought for relatively cheap.

[Texsox]

One problem with simply granting another license - the cost of entry, the "moat" if you will, for satelite radio is enormous. Way, way, way, way, way higher than conventional radio. So the only way new licensure is not ridiculously costly is if one of the existing businesses goes into bankruptcy, and the hardware can be bought for relatively cheap.

 

Maybe not. Aren't competing cable tv suppliers using the same cables?

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe not. Aren't competing cable tv suppliers using the same cables?

Yes, and maintenance and growth costs are spread over providers on a customer-base size basis. But I am not sure about satelites bing reusable for different signals. Someone with inside knowledge of how those satelites were built, the software they use, and the nature of signal strength and conflicting signal generation would have to comment on that. If any of those doesn't allow for multple sets of wide band output, than you can't go the same route as cable TV or telcos.

[Rex Kickass]

One problem with simply granting another license - the cost of entry, the "moat" if you will, for satelite radio is enormous. Way, way, way, way, way higher than conventional radio. So the only way new licensure is not ridiculously costly is if one of the existing businesses goes into bankruptcy, and the hardware can be bought for relatively cheap.

 

A broadcaster could simply lease space on existing satellites. It may provide for a more limited content stream, but that's not necessarily important when determining competition ability.

[Steff]

They don't anticipate the merger being at all close to complete till the end of '07 so they have time to figure things out.

 

Side note, if you are a lifetime member of either they claim there will be no further subscription costs when (if) the merger takes place.

[redandwhite]

The E-mail I got today:

 

To: SIRIUS Subscribers

 

Today is a very exciting day for SIRIUS customers. As you may have heard, SIRIUS Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio are merging to form the nation's premier audio entertainment provider.

 

This combination of our two offerings will benefit you - our loyal listeners. As a single company, we'll provide superior programming to you every day with the best of both SIRIUS and XM. Currently, XM and SIRIUS broadcast a wide range of commercial-free music channels, exclusive sports coverage, news, talk, and entertainment programming. Howard Stern. Oprah and Friends. The NFL. MLB. NBA. ESPN. CNBC. Fox News. Additionally, the combined company will be able to improve existing services such as real-time traffic information and rear-seat video as well as introduce new ones.

 

After shareholder and regulatory approvals, we anticipate that the combination will be finalized by the end of 2007. Until then, both companies will continue to operate independently. We will continue to provide you with the uninterrupted service - as well as the outstanding customer support - that you have come to expect and enjoy from SIRIUS. We do not anticipate any changes in your service during the merger process, however, please call our customer care team on 1- 888-539-7474 should you have any questions.

 

We look forward to the many benefits this combination will offer and continuing to make your listening experience an enjoyable one - offering more of the Very Best Radio on Radio.

 

Stay tuned,

 

Mel Karmazin, CEO

[Texsox]

Think Mel wrote that himself?

 

 

[redandwhite]

Of course. It was also personalized to me, I just didn't want anybody to know my name was Justin.. s***..

[SoxFan562004]

Well, the Billy West Spotlight series on Howard 100 the last 2 days was worth the money, espically the "Jackie Puppet" segment.

 

Sounds like merger won't be done soon enough to get baseball this year on Sirius, hopefully maybe by September so I can listen to the critical stretch run games.

[redandwhite]

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the Billy West Spotlight series on Howard 100 the last 2 days was worth the money, espically the "Jackie Puppet" segment.

 

Sounds like merger won't be done soon enough to get baseball this year on Sirius, hopefully maybe by September so I can listen to the critical stretch run games.

 

That really aggravates me, it would save me money on MLB.TV - oh well, i guess.