NAB, Congress react to merger approval; XM and Sirius let haters hate, watch money pile up
By Nilay Patel 
posted Mar 24th 2008 7:27PM
posted Mar 24th 2008 7:27PM
Well, it's only been a couple hours since the DOJ officially approved the XM / Sirius merger, and while we're a little surprised at how low-profile the two satellite radio services are being about the decision, there's nothing at all shocking about NAB's reaction -- the organization says it's "astonished," and that the Justice Department's decision to "propose granting a monopoly" to the two companies is "breathtaking." Yeah, they're not happy. Same goes for various members of Congress: Rep. Ed Markey, head of the House telecom subcommittee, expressed his disappointment that "the Bush administration has apparently never seen a telecommunications merger it didn't like," and suggested FCC approval would have to come with strict conditions, while Sen. Herb Kohl flatly said the deal would "create a satellite radio monopoly" and encouraged the FCC to block it. That's a lot of haterade -- but XM and Sirius are apparently too busy looking deeply into each other's eyes as their respective stock prices soar, because the only post-decision statement either company has made is a rehash of a months-old list of organizations and people that support the merger. Ah, young love -- so innocent, so oblivious.Read - NAB statement
Read - Bloomberg article with Congressional reaction
Read - XM list of supporters
50 told me go 'head switch the style up
And if they hate, then let 'em hate
And watch the money pile up
Do you expect to be highly ranked or do you feel some sort of pleasure with lowest rankings?
What up, GAAAANNGGSSTTTAAA?!
ok lets just start a chain of rap lyrics for this topic, should be fun:
"I dont know what, they want from me
Its like the more money we come across
The more problems we see"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nzHIx4fVuE
Oh man, the irony is killing me
BLAGH BLAGH BLAGH
"You shouldnt throw stones if you live in a glass house
and if you got a glass jaw you should watch your mouth
cuz ill break your face"
Perhaps the most eloquent rap lyrics ever, courtesy of 50 cent.
To quote Jim Jones on this merger:
"Balllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiinnnnn!!!!!!!"
mo money mo problems
weeeee willlllll weeeeeee willlllll ROK JEW!!!
really? 50cent and puff daddy?
you guys make me sad.
oh, and congratulations Mr Gremlin, you caught the Kanye West reference. how obscure! it's like you're in an exclusive club called "everyone" :P
Fail. It was first used in 50 Cent's "In Da Club".
"I'm a tell you what Banks told me cause go 'head switch the style up
/ if the niggas hate then let 'em hate / and watch the money pile up"
Kanye actually borrowed the line from 50 for Good Life on his
Graduation album.
If anything good comes out of all this it should be more bandwidth, higher bit rate and improved sound quality. Right now, satellite radio sucks when it comes to sound quality.
Improved sound quality is the only thing that will get me to come back.
Its also nice to see that we wont be split between the two when it comes to sports - one of the big issues before was that each of the major sports NFL, NHL, MLB would put XM against Sirius and negotiate incredibly high contracts with exclusivity - so for instance XM would pay way too much to carry the NHL and Sirius users would be left out.
on and not having the service tied to one device would be good - how about a card/chip I can take out of one device and plug into my home stereo etc
There's a lot of potential - I hope they do it right
yes, a sort of SIM card for satellite radio would be awesome and should not be too hard to implement since its based off of existing technology
XM has had a card like this for years now.
Yes, but as quality goes up, so will price. Who's to compete with a merger who now own the air?
I haven't been following this too closely. Will the eventual merger mean all channels are on both services (renamed one service ?)
I think it will probably be that all the unique channels will be on one unified service, but all the similar channels will probably just be merged.
PS: On satellite radio are they still called stations?
I don't think they'd be called "stations"; that name implies that each broadcast is originating from a different physical location or transmission source. The name "channel" would be more similar to a cable TV channel, where the cable provider provides all the stations from one origin and allows the user to select which channel to view
On XM, they are called "CHANNELS".
On Sirius, they are called "STREAMS".
Worth repeating:
HAZZAH! THX DOJ. Now Mel hurry up with those vacation tickets, golf vouchers and cash filled suitcases for the congressmen that are in the pocket of the NAB. They will surely now try and pressure the FCC to cock-block er drag their azzez further...
hahaha! he said cock! thats a rooster you iD10T "i shall say nI! to you and cal it a day!
Yeah.... In order to be a monopoly, one would have to actually offer a service worth monopolizing. It's not like there was a huge demand for satellite service to begin with. The only way either one of them was going to survive was for the other to buy it. That said, so long as they don't screw too much with my Sirius channels, I could care less what the Justice Department thinks.
i was thinking the exact opposite i hope they dont screw with my xm channels to much.
The DOJ got chocolate in my peanut butter!
@ Andy
I was thinking the same thing. it's not like because of this it's gonna cause all other satalite radio services to eventually go out of business, cuz their are non. ha. maybe i should try and start my own...
@ tcc3
hahahaha
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Thats all I have to say!!!
The notion of this merger being anti-competitive is completely unfounded.
Both XM and Sirius compete in a broader context with content providers on traditional radio, television, and the Internet. Additionally, the satellite radio industry has huge upfront costs, which naturally leads to monopolies and oligopolies. It's not because of any anti-competitive practices that they're the only two satellite radio firms in the US.
A merger would lead to an improvement of service, features, and quality. That would benefit us, the consumers.
In addition to the huge costs involved, the other reason for only two sat-rad companies is the lack of bandwidth. The FCC only opened up and licensed enough bandwidth for two companies. So no matter the bankroll, there is technically only room for the two companies.
here's a thought i just had - what's the point of the doj, et al looking into these potential mergers (be it sirius / xm or microsoft / yahoo and so on)? the basic premise is to protect the consumer. if there were no consumer involved, who would care?
this is the first time i can remember that the majority of the consumer (at least the folks that already are subscribing to sat. radio - i've been a sirius subscriber for 6 years) actually supports the merger. check out these comments or some of the boards over at dsl reports. the public seems to overwhelmingly support a merger. aside from pandering to special interest groups that line your pockets, i can't see any real reason to oppose this.
don't we matter? oh right, i didn't write a fat check to mr. markey or mr. kohl to tell them what to think, so i guess i don't.
"Protecting the consumer" and "asking the consumer what they want" are two very different things. Everyone drives cars, but does that make them healthy? You get a few safety features, but they still belt out toxins after being price gouged on gas.
Tell that to Direct TV/Dish Network.
By the same logic, it should also apply to cable companies, car manufacturers, and really, anything else that one could make a half-arsed argument that your direct competition is not your competition, but someone in a comparable market.
This is the weakest decision ever.
If anything, this will end the "my favorite satellite radio is better than yours" debate. I'm just wondering what they're going to do with O&A when things are all said and done.
http://www.miscgarbage.com
That is MEL for you...getting the job done :)
There are sooo many ways to get music today so allowing these two companies to merge is hardly a monopoly. Some people just need to get their head out of their asses.
Are there many ways to get programming via satellite?
No?
Then it's a monopoly.
Or at least, that's what Direct TV/Dish Network were told.
THIS took 14 months?
The Government is a failure.
That's one of the biggest issues I think here. It seems ridiculous to use this an example of a system's failure (it is, afterall, just radio)... but it's just an example of how easily the system can be corrupted. I mean, the right (in my opinion) decision was made but it should never have taken this long.
They were working on the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which per chance, is just the right amount for a satellite player and lifetime subscription! hmmm
Engadget mixtape out soon...
Wow, Engadget finally siding with Republicans. All hope is not lost. Thanks guys.
This isn't a Democrat vs Republican issue. The world is not as black and white as people imagine it to be. There are a lot of gray areas. This is one of them. On the one hand, YES you are granting a monopoly, but it was imperfect competition to begin with because the radios weren't interoperable.
With that said, both companies on their own couldn't afford to keep their own infrastructures up. Satellites are expensive. By merging, they increase revenue and only have to support a single infrastructure. This means lower prices and hopefully creates a "standard" for satellite radio which will allow other companies to use this infrastructure to create their own radio networks.
There are pros and cons to each side. Don't listen to the NAB, they HATE satellite radio as two companies or as one because they are competition to them. People hate the 500,000 commercials on every other song. They know satellite is hurting their advertising revenue by having a system akin to cable TV. Pay for content and have stations with no commercials. They are against the Merger not because it will create a monopoly but because it will allow their competitor to thrive.
And for the record, NAB is actually a very republican company. Furthermore, Republicans aren't evil. Democrats aren't evil. We all genuinely want peace and prosperity in the US, we just go about it in different ways. Politics aside, we need to look past the bull and start working together to create a real bipartisan government. Instead of nay saying each side, we should all work together. We all inhabit this earth - we all should work together because everything we do affects everyone else.
Stop with the partisan politics. Stop being conservative or liberal, populist, fascist or communist. Take your ideals and work with your "enemies" to create a better world for everyone.
S_T_F_U
"That's a lot of haterade"
Ahaha, I love it..
Haterade. Is It In You?
Funny, isn't it? Welcome to 2003!
Herb Kohl you have disgraced the great state of Wisconsin.
NAB = National Association of Bastards!
it looks like the dog is pooing
In the short term, it makes more sense from a business-perspective to keep the companies' services separate. This market is still in the early stages and people have polarized to either of the companies and few have both. To combine the brands as well as the services is like starting from scratch.
They might as well take advantage of their monopoly and cater to each's strengths rather than scrapping one of them and losing all the brand equity. Sucks for us end users but they're going to have do a lot in the long term to steal people away from free HD radio and other free broadcasts.
I think rather than being a jackass and try to block the merger by paying FCC and Congress, NAB should get their asses together and actually start working on their so called HD Radio if they are that scared to compete with the new xm-siri combination
F U NAB and Lobbyists
Hoo Hoo .... I invented mergers. Tell 'em Fred.
It's a glorious day for us dual-subscribers of both. Ok, there probably aren't many of us.
The reason Mel and Co. are being so low-key?? Not over until FCC signs off.
MLB, Stern, NFL, Big 10, music - all in 1 place! Love it.
Awesome title
LOL, this is why I love reading Engadget.
The title made me crack up... tho they missed a "the" between watch and money i think..
I have my iGoogle to show Engadget, PCMAG, slashdot, and some phone article titles but I find Engadget the most enjoyable.
Good news for XM and Sirius. They just can't survive competing against each other.
F the NAB!!
I just cancelled my XM subscription...go figure. I suppose I'll wait til we see what becomes of this...or...what this becomes.
O&A always win in the end.
Ron & Fez, noon to 3, XM 202
I mean, I hate the whole O&A vs. Stern thing, it's annoying because it's all preference and no one is rational about it BUT what do you mean by they *always* win in the end? I don't know a lot about them, but what are examples of this?
If the NAB don't like it then they can start their own satellite radio company...oh, wait...
I'm wondering what is going to happen to the Auto manufacturers who have built in XM or Sirus into their cars like Volvos and Subaraus. Hopefully the older model radios will pick up whatever the hell they decide to broadcast on now.
Damn. So much for competition. I hope that XM emerges as the real provider here, because I can't stomach how terrible Sirius service is. Sirius has all those crappy "DJ's" on their channels inbetween songs, in fact once I was listening and 15 minutes, 15 MINUTES, was nothing but talk between the DJs. It was so bad I turned back to terrestrial channels.
XM however has nothing but music. No shitty DJs.
no xm has dj's too. They just rarely don't talk that much, usually it's a blurb every 6 songs or so.
yes I much prefer music being played by robots.. damn those DJ's.. just give me a constant repeat of the top 40 songs in the US and I'll continue to vote for Bush and shop at Wal-mart.
WWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I never understood how the only two companies in this market merging in order to prevent themselves from individually folding is a monopoly? What competition does this hurt? Siriusly?
Isnt owning 50 radio atations a monopoloy, especially if they are politically motivated or something?
The FCC should look at themselves, and radio station owners.. like Rupert.
I love that a lot of people don't see the irony in the NAB and ClearChannel calling this a "monopoly".. The only reason they're concerned at all is that they fear the competition from a profitable company serving a better product. If they weren't competing, they wouldn't care..
People actually pay for radio?
That's why I have an MP3/MP4 player. There's nothing on satellite radio that I can't get on my PMP for free.
Sports? Don't care about them. News? Free in podcasts. Howard Stern? Sorry, I'm too busy listening to real entertainment to care about listening strippers on a Sybian OVER THE RADIO.
There's no reason I'd pay for radio. None. Especially since it's not even advertisement-free.
They'd have to pay ME to listen to XM/Sirius for any length of time.
Does it really matter. I mean, satellite radio really isn't that popular is it?