I believe you post just to play devils advocate. Most of your posts are quite silly actually. Chris, what's your stake in satellite radio? Do you own either service? You said in your last comment, "that there is a market base of customers where satellite radio is exclusive. The two are not non-rival, but they are not complete rivals either."
Cellphones do compete with landlines for customers. Should the FCC have prevented all the mergers of all the cellphone consolidation? With the mergers we have much better service than the small operators would have provided. Land lines have been in a serious decrease ever since cell phones became viable, but only after huge investments, mergers and consolidations.
What is so exclusive about satellite radio? You "believe that there is a specific market demand for satellite radio, independent of internet and terrestrial radio." Then why stifle it? This specific market demand is a result of people tired of terrestrial radio. It's a great alternative.
Your argument about the FCC originally saying they could not merge is invalid now. Laws and rules change. The FCC said they would probably grant a request for them to merge.
"Until people can tune into a radio station over the web from their car... satellite radio will have an independent market that can (and I believe will) be monopolized."
What's the percentage of people in the U.S. with Xm/Sirius? That number is pretty miniscule. I can currently do that now with my Cellphone/PDA, but my data plan is much more expensive than what I pay for satellite. Why don't you complain about the unfair advantage terrestrial radio stations have over interent/satellite radio. They have to pay more in licensing fees to the RIAA. The NAB is spending $200 million in advertising for HDradio. Had you ever heard of HDRadio before satellite radio? Of course not, because a single satellite company will make the NAB work to develop better talent, equipment and programming for terrestrial listeners.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Mar 20th 2007 9:35PM
@ Chris Price
I believe you post just to play devils advocate. Most of your posts are quite silly actually. Chris, what's your stake in satellite radio? Do you own either service? You said in your last comment, "that there is a market base of customers where satellite radio is exclusive. The two are not non-rival, but they are not complete rivals either."
Cellphones do compete with landlines for customers. Should the FCC have prevented all the mergers of all the cellphone consolidation? With the mergers we have much better service than the small operators would have provided.
Land lines have been in a serious decrease ever since cell phones became viable, but only after huge investments, mergers and consolidations.
What is so exclusive about satellite radio? You "believe that there is a specific market demand for satellite radio, independent of internet and terrestrial radio." Then why stifle it? This specific market demand is a result of people tired of terrestrial radio. It's a great alternative.
Your argument about the FCC originally saying they could not merge is invalid now. Laws and rules change. The FCC said they would probably grant a request for them to merge.
"Until people can tune into a radio station over the web from their car... satellite radio will have an independent market that can (and I believe will) be monopolized."
What's the percentage of people in the U.S. with Xm/Sirius? That number is pretty miniscule. I can currently do that now with my Cellphone/PDA, but my data plan is much more expensive than what I pay for satellite. Why don't you complain about the unfair advantage terrestrial radio stations have over interent/satellite radio. They have to pay more in licensing fees to the RIAA. The NAB is spending $200 million in advertising for HDradio. Had you ever heard of HDRadio before satellite radio? Of course not, because a single satellite company will make the NAB work to develop better talent, equipment and programming for terrestrial listeners.