Satellite CEOs aren't the only ones changing their tune

After witnessing the pair of attempts by the National Association of Broadcasters to discredit the Sirius-XM merger as a monopoly or bail-out, the folks at Orbitcast decided that "two can play" at that game, and created this clever "ad" of their own. We'll let the image do the talking.

[Jesse S @ Apr 7th 2007 11:30PM]

What image?

[Jesse S @ Apr 7th 2007 11:32PM]

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/04/sat-radio-merger-ad-orbitcast.jpg

Why isn't it showing up in the article?

[LC @ Apr 7th 2007 11:46PM]

It's about time. I always thought those NAB ads were a load of crap. I mean if they truly thought that they weren't in competition with satellite then why would they even give a crap about the merger and whether it was a monopoly or not? It would be like taking out ads against the merger of Coke and Pepsi.

[pyro @ Apr 8th 2007 12:04AM]

that image tried to pass off limiting competition with a monopoly as limiting competition with a normal company.

It looks to me like NAB is trying to not have to compete with a monopoly, which also promotes health competition and they're using that to promote the stopping of the merger. I don't see how it's a "load of crap" that a company doesn't want a monopoly to deal with.

[LC @ Apr 8th 2007 8:58AM]

Pyro-

Look at what you just wrote. "It looks to me like NAB is trying to not have to compete with a monopoly," "I don't see how it's a "load of crap" that a company doesn't want a monopoly to deal with."

If they are competing with them then how the hell are they a monopoly? A monopoly implies NO competition.

[Don Wilson @ Apr 8th 2007 12:08AM]

Funny that the NAB isn't about what their name suggests.

[jeff.lautenberger @ Apr 8th 2007 12:10AM]

why is it no onw can friggin spell iPod? so many times i see iPOD, Ipod, IPod, IPOD, etc.

[Neptune2603 @ Apr 8th 2007 12:31AM]

I-BOOK, IPOD, I-POD, iPOD --- no one ever gets it right, it's iPod. Unrelated, but it's not a razor, it's a razr.

[K_G @ Apr 8th 2007 12:48AM]

Gee, I read the second one as a rhetorical question made during a opening of a speech that was likely followed by details on how they were going to compete against them. As for the first statement, the key phase is "defined market" (ie, the Sat radio marketplace), so there's nothing in that first statement that is untrue. Why don't you include that little bit in XM's and SIrius' license where they agreed that they would never merge. But a nice muckraking job of taking a stray quote out of context...Carl Monday would be proud...You jackin' it? or is just AOL telling you "hey, orbitcast isn't getting any page views...cross post some of their crap"

[Mike Botros @ Apr 8th 2007 1:22AM]

The point is... before satelite radio came around broadcasters didn't care about digital broadcasting. Now they have to spend more money to broadcast in HD digital radio, in order to be able to compete in sound quality. When the satelite radio companies merge, they will have a greater variety of programming. More and more car companies are offering satelite radio as standard features, but only 2 have HD radio available. Me personally I'd rather have free HD radio. They just don't wanna try to compete with satelite, so they just make some garbage up so that they satelite radio companies have to compete with each other and consumers have to go one way or the other. When they merge consumers won't have to worry about that cause it won't matter which SR company the car companies choose to go with, they'll all have the same programming available to them, and SR will be competing directly in programming with free radio.

[Logik @ Apr 8th 2007 2:30AM]

@Mike

That's exactly the reason why I haven't jumped on the S.R. bandwagon; programming. I have tried both Sirius and XM, and the programming on either one is not enough to merit cost of subscription and equipment. Whenever I get tired of the radio, I just fire up the iPod and enjoy commercial-free CD-quality music.

[LC @ Apr 8th 2007 9:04AM]

Exactly Logik. I do have satellite, but when nothing I like is on at a particular time I will try some AM/FM stations or just put on my Gigabeat. I'm sure I'm not the only one that alternates between them so it sounds like competition to me.

[pyro @ Apr 8th 2007 11:21AM]

not necesarily. They're afraid that the formation of a monopoly might knock them out of buisness, it happens alot.

[LC @ Apr 8th 2007 11:46AM]

That doesn't make any sense. It's not a monopoly until there are no competitors or that the competitors make up such a small percent of the market that they are basically insignificant. Broadcast radio is huge. They countered satellites argument by saying that they are not in competition with them because they are a defined market. If they are not in competition then why take out the ads? Why spend all that money coming against a merger that they say does not affect them? This is why I say it is a load of crap. It does affect them because satellite is in competition with radio so is the iPod and internet radio. There will be no monopoly if they merge because consumers will still have a choice to dump satellite and go with broadcast, podcast, iTunes, etc.

[JonHimself @ Apr 8th 2007 12:56PM]

A monopoly occurs where there is a single provider or a service, right? (That's my understanding). So for the NAB to say the merger would create a monopoly they are 100% correct - there would only be one provider of the satellite radio service... that is there argument. The counter-argument is that it shouldn't be looked at in terms of just satellite radio but that people can get their audio-to-go (or audio at home, whatever) from a number of services (terrestrial radiom iPods, CDs, HD radio, etc) so they do not see it as a monopoly (because several people are providing different audio aources).
That's the way I see it at least... and just so you know, I don't agree with the NAB but I at least see what they mean by a monopoly.

[Philip @ Apr 9th 2007 4:52PM]

It's obvious what they mean by monopoly. The NBA sees this, too. The "monopoly" argument they are using is purely to prevent the merger of the only two satellite broadcasters to prevent a stronger competitor against the NBA.

The whole problem with this is the NBA's shill of false information attempting to prevent the forming of a formidable competitor.

[JonHimself @ Apr 8th 2007 12:58PM]

Full of typo's and homonym errors.. sorry.

[LC @ Apr 8th 2007 1:10PM]

"A monopoly occurs where there is a single provider or a service, right?"

It's not exactly that black and white. A lot can be interpreted on what the definition of the service is. Is it the content or the means of distributing that content? The content itself can be provided by satellite, broadcast, podcast, internet, etc. If it were only determined by the distribution means then cable providers would be considered a monopoly since there is usually only one cable provider in a particular market.

[JonHimself @ Apr 8th 2007 1:21PM]

But then the difference is that even though there is only one cable distributor, the satellite distributors (of which there are usually two) provide (for the most part) the same content. Like if you want to get NBC you can get Rogers Cable, Expressvu or Starchoice (Canadian example, sorry) If you want to get Howard Stern or Opie & Anthony you can only get it through Satellite radio. Terrestrial radio, CDs and iPods can't (legally) offer that.
I don't know enough to really debate any specifics of the monopoly, but it just seems like cable wouldn't count because the content they're providing can be given to you through another service. And of course there are differences, like OnDemand or other stuff that only one of the two can do (cable and satellite) but most of the content is the same.

[LC @ Apr 8th 2007 1:50PM]

Actually in the examples you mentioned, if one wanted Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony, they would have to pay for two subscriptions. If they merge they would have both for the price of one and that would be for the consumer benefit.

Also, Satellite radio is not the only one that provides exclusive content. Just as you say Broadcast, cd's and iTunes cannot offer Stern and O&A, Satellite cannot air iTune content or certain programming exclusive to Broadcast, such as local or regional radio programming.

"it just seems like cable wouldn't count because the content they're providing can be given to you through another service. "

Outside of the few Satellite exclusives, Satellite radio is not much different in that respect. A lot of their content is syndicated programming, such as Air America, conservative shows like Laura Ingraham or Glenn Beck and NPR programming.

[Davis Brewer @ Apr 8th 2007 5:34PM]

Jon,

Here's the thing - satellite radio and terrestrial radio are in competition with each other. If XM and Sirius merge, there will be a monopoly on satellite radio. However, having a monopoly on satellite radio as a product category is as meaningless as having a monopoly of navel oranges. I'll just have a valencia orange or an apple.

The NAB may be correct in a sense that there could be a satellite radio monopoly but that means nothing.

[LC @ Apr 8th 2007 1:51PM]

Forgot to add that that syndicated programming I mentioned is available on broadcast as well.

[chazzzzy @ Apr 8th 2007 6:59PM]

Pyro,
The definition of a monopoly means that there is no competition. If XM and Sirius merged and it created a monopoly, that would mean that they could jack up prices to $100 a month and people would be forced to pay it because there would be no alternative.. but they wouldn't be able to jack up the price to $100/mo because people would then abandon satellite and listen to only free radio.

So there is absolute competition, thus NO MONOPOLY. What the radio stations fear is that people are switching to satellite radio in droves and free radio is losing advertising dollars. All you had to do it listen to Howard Stern on regular FM before he left to see what a TRUE monopoly was... there were over 20 minutes of COMMERCIALS EVERY HOUR.. and you were forced to listen to them because the radio stations would collude and make sure that they play the commercials at the same time... so changing channels wouldn't get you away from the commercials.

Now that satellite radio exists with commercial free music, the traditional radio stations are having to cut down on the amount of commercials they play in order to compete. The result is less money for them, and thus they are upset. They want Satellite radio to FAIL so that they can go back to 20 minutes of commercials per hour.

[smfrazz @ Apr 8th 2007 8:27PM]

I have Sirius and only listen to one of the "news" channels or Kidstuff for my daughter. I personally hat the sound quality of ANY compressed music whether it is SR or MP2, WMA etc. I'll stick to uncompressed CD quality thank you. Everything else isn't worth it.

[smfrazz @ Apr 8th 2007 8:28PM]

I have Sirius and only listen to one of the "news" channels or Kidstuff for my daughter. I personally hate the sound quality of ANY compressed music, whether it is S.R., AAC, MP3, WMA etc. I'll stick to uncompressed CD quality thank you. Everything else isn't worth it.

Logik - You call what you listen to on an iPod CD quality? Unless you are using Apple Lossless (which I have yet to see anyone personally use on their iPod).

[Jeff @ Apr 9th 2007 2:40PM]

Pardon my igonorance, but who/what is/are the NAB? Are they the people behind FM radio? If so, RIP, dudes. FM radio sucks and has for years.

How about you try actually competing with satelite? Yeah, you still have to run ads because you're not subscription based, but tell your idiot DJ's to shut the hell up and presto, you'll find more time to play music, thereby increasing the ratio of music to commercials, and that's a big step. Next up? Stop playing the same freakin' artist every fifth song. Offer variety and maybe people will listen for longer than 10 minutes.

In short, quit bitching about satelite radio - merger or not - because you have way larger problems of your own to address. FM sucks so bad I wonder if it's even fixable anymore.

[Fernsehturm @ Apr 19th 2007 12:20PM]

Well, I work at the NAB so I may as well bite. Davis Brewer above is right that satellite and terrestrial compete, but he leaves out the fact that terrestrial stations cannot compete nationally with satellite radio, and therefore cannot set prices the way a monopoly satellite giant could.

And the quote juxtaposition isn't fair. One is about market practices, the other is about how people spend their time. It's clever, but inaccurate.