NAB attempts to delay XM / Sirius merger even further
By Nilay Patel 
posted Jun 26th 2008 4:58PM
posted Jun 26th 2008 4:58PM
Even though the Justice Department has approved the XM / Sirius merger and the FCC's approval is all but sure to follow, those pesky fools at NAB just won't go down without a fight -- the organization is demanding that FCC's approval be postponed until certain documents are turned over by the agency. NAB says the paperwork shows "apparent wrongdoing" by Sirius and XM officials in including FM transmitters in radios and terrestrial repeaters, and it met with FCC officials on Tuesday to make its claim. There's no word on how effective any of this is going to be, but we'll give it to NAB for being tenacious, at least -- now please, go away.
hate NAB it will better for all if they could merge
Yet ANOTHER childish hissy fit by the NAB in an attempt to derail the merger.
I have never seen such a pathetic "group" of whiners before. Thank god I never listen to Testicle radio anymore!!
How dare they look out for consumers.
The fact is this merger is bad for the public. The only 2 choices for satellite radio merging means there will be no competition in the field. Creating a monopoly. And not a fake monopoly like MS had. A real, honest to God monopoly. Remember when cable companies had a monopoly on pay tv (before the mini dish providers arrived)? The number of channels never changed, services were never added, but prices kept going up. Once they got competition they were forced to try and be competative. Competition is good.
@ genaldar
The NAB is only looking out for themselves......they care NOTHING about the consumer and they certainly aren't looking out for them. Educate yourself before you make such idiotic comments.
No one is FORCING you to pay for Satellite Radio......it's not a required service such as things like Electricity and Water. If they end up pricing their service too high, people will cancel it and turn to other things like regular radio, or listen to more CDs/Tapes in their vehicles.
In this situation, the winner will ultimately be the consumer because of the increased programming options provided by merging the two companies together. Rather that doubling up on channels like they currently are, that same money can be invested into more new channels. How exactly is that bad for the consumer??
@Kris that is y it is good for all, they can spend more money on new stations it also is easier for the consumer because now they don't hav to choose between the two because like me most americans are lazy and don't want to have to research too much
I really am surprised that people think that this merger would be good for the consumer. I am under on illusions that the NAB is looking out for my well being, and agree that their motives are purely self serving. That does not though change the fact that a merged XM and Sirius would have a monopoly on satellite radio. Now, I am not saying that they would have a monopoly on listening choices in my car, but they would have a monopoly on satellite radio. Just because something is not a necessity, does not mean that there should not be government regulation to protect the consumer. I currently subscribe to Sirius. Although I would welcome the addition of XM's programing such as MLB, I would not welcome it at the cost of higher subscription rates, which would be inevitable. Not to mention the new receiver I would have to buy to replace the one that I had custom installed.
The NAB is desperate. The fact is that xm and sirius can't continue to operate as separate companies forever. They are both losing money. Consolidate before both companies go out of business and we wont even be able to get sat radio period. I love my XM Radio. Helps on those long trips to work every day.
Why is Sirius's/XM's poor management NAB's fault? Both companies overspent for talent (1/2 BILLION $ for Stern? And he takes every Friday off!), continue to water-down their programing (long gone are the days of truly varied and eclectic programming; most of Sirius's channels now sound like top 40 FM radio), and heavily diluted their own stock. Further, this WILL create a monopoly, and the arguments to the contrary ("We compete with the internet! We compete with the Ipod! We compete with watching paint dry!") are laughable; what other device delivers mobile live, new, uncensored audio content without commercials nationally without having to rely on local networks? I would hate to see satrad go, but if it does, it will have nothing to do with NAB and everything to do with satrad's own mismangement. NAB is simply exploiting the position that satrad put itself in.
It is not a monopoly if it is a totally elective service. ATT was/is a monopoly. Standard Oil was a monopoly. Sirius/XM cannot be a true monopoly since no one has to use their service. If you call them a monopoly, then you would have to say that pharmaceutical companies are monopolies since they control proprietary drugs.
The threat of competition. Although I don't particularly care for satellite radio, I can't stop from laughing at NAB for feeling threatened by this merger.
I can't stand regular FM radio. Too many commercials. I prefer satellite.
It's cheap, especially of you buy the lifetime package.
Only problem with the lifetime package is you have to pay $75 if you want to change the radio you're using (Upgrading), and you can only do it 3 times. So if you're on your 3rd radio and something happens to it.....guess what, there goes your lifetime subscription and you have to buy another/new one.
Good idea in theory, practical application however lags behind.
All I know is XM radio has more commercials now than ever. I thought it was supposed to be commercial free and it nearly was 4 years ago.
The commercials on XM radio are longer, more irritating (bigger peepee pills and get rich schemes) and more frequent than ever and they are adding them to more of the channels.
As soon as my subscription is over i'm going to cancel and go back to radio and mp3 player. XM can suck my 47 inch dong!
The stations I listen to never have commercials. Gotta love Squizz!
Other than the Clear Channel stations (of which XM wanted to dump, but were forced to continue to carry), all of the music stations on both XM and Sirius are, and have been, commercial free.
Other stations, such as news and entertainment channels, have always had commercials. Whether or not the commercial load on these channels have increased I can't tell you - I never listen to them.
Goddammit, this is fuggin crazy. If the NAB honestly wants to beat satellite radio, they need to get some HALF-WAY DECENT PROGRAMING!
Can't the NAB understand, that people don't want to pay for radio just to spite them. It's because for one of several reasons (reception, quality etc.) people choose not to tune into FM or AM. Will they not be happy until XM and Sirius are shut down? Will they come after my iPod next, when I still don't tune into my local country station with all ads all the time?
I hope there are no more delays in this merger. When both companies come together, I'm hoping for some quality choices.
There really is no risk of price going up - XM and Sirius are right, there are way too many options out there. If satellite radio make the price unreasonable at all, we'll drop it and stick with our iPods. Plus internet radio is getting closer and closer to being a full fledged, tangible option every day - it's not quite there, yet but will be soon.
I've been paying $77 a year for the past few years for my XM and don't really plan on paying much more. If these two can merge and keep rates around the same, I'll be happy.
How do you get it for $77/yr? If I knew it was that low, I'd have got it years ago...
Just call them and threaten to quit... they'll give it to you. There's a bunch of threads on slickdeals.net about it
This really is ridiculous; the NAB is obviously a group of individuals who represent terrestrial radio who are in direct competition with XM/Sirius. They aren't concerned about consumer’s welfare; they're concerned about losing millions of more dollars in their already failing market to XM/Sirius. Terrestrial radio is not as popular as it once was and they’re losing tons of money as well because just like satellite radio they compete with iPods, iTunes, internet radio and every other source for audio entertainment.
It's desperate, it's sad and it HURTS the consumer. Because regardless if this merger goes through, there will eventually only be 1 satellite company. And from the looks of XM's books, Sirius will be that company. The funny part is satellite radio is a luxury not a necessity, where was all this opposition to these huge oil companies merging? Glad to see the government is wisely deliberating over the "important" issues.
Some whiny bitches at the NAB :rofl:
To all those crying monopoly, I ask " If this was a monopoly then there would be no competition with terrestrial radio, so why would the NAB try to stop the merger." . . . "Exactly because there would be competition, with a vastly inferior product (terrestrial) which according to the definition of monopoly is NOT" In that case SONY has a monopoly in the game industry because they are the only ones to make blu-ray drive game consoles. Sound ridiculous? Take a look at this, satellite RADIO, terrestrial RADIO, internet RADIO. Think People!
Ok, that post is a jumbled mess and I'm not sure what your point is, but I think you're trying to claim that NAB resistance to a satrad merger is proof that a monopoly among satrad providers will not be created. Actually, its quite to the contrary; its because terrestrial radio CAN'T compete with satrad that they are fighting the merger, and that proves that satrad is a unique product without peers in that service sector. Satrad is the only source for live, new, uncensored mobile content that offers uninterrupted, national coverage. Can I hear songs that I haven't already heard on my Ipod? No. Can I get live sports and talk shows uncensored on my Ipod or from a terrestrial station? No. Do local terrestrial stations carry seamlessly across America? Obviously not. Satrad is a unique product that, while it may compete in a general sense for the attention of the public (that argument could be made ad infinitum; once could claim that watching grass grow is competition), does not compete in any way with other services currently available. I don't mind people supporting the merger, but lets be honest about what it represents: a monopoly.
I dont know what that guy "Artie Lange" is talking about. They paid Stern what he was worth. They went from under 600k customers to over 8 million in record time and its pretty much all Sterns doing.
I've had Sirius since Stern signed his contract and since then I've also found a ton more shows I like on there. The music is incredibly varied and there are ZERO commercials on those stations.
Even my non geek Girlfriend now has a Sirius installed in her car its just that much better then regular radio. The NAB can rot for all I care. Even if XM and Sirius died tomorrow I would NEVER listen to regular radio again...NEVER.
And what proof is there that Stern had anything to do with that growth? If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the majority of Sirius's growth came from inking deals with car makers, not Stern, and that he has less than 3 million listeners on Sirius (far less than the 8 million you're claiming). Correlation is not causation. Stern's great; obviously I'm a fan. But they paid him way too much (particularly when he works a 4 day week and takes a week-long vacation nearly every month). Satrad has no one to blame but themselves if they go under; they have been horribly mismanaged.
Actually, I was giving Stern too much credit. Per Arbitron's ratings, he has only 1.2 million listeners on Sirius:
http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/arbitron-ratings-for-satellite-radio.html
So, if Stern was responsible for 7 million subscriptions, why is it that he only pulls 1/7 of those subscribers?
@ Artie Lang, because the majority of his "listeners" were only there to complain about him to his Boss or the FCC, now that he can do whatever he pleases, there aren't as many listening to him.
Artie Lange... you don't think that Howard brought a lot of attention to Sirius that wouldn't have been there otherwise? There's no question that Stern was responsible for millions of listeners, even if they don't necessarily listen to his show.
As far as him having 1.2 millions listeners... I think that "statistic" is no more than the result of a faulty method of data collection. But even if true, that's actually a hell of a lot. As it says in the article you linked to...
"But Howard Stern owned the top spot as the most-listened to satellite radio channel with over five times as many listeners as Opie & Anthony"
@ Artie Lange (the talentless one)
Quit fucking whining about Stern only being on 4 days a week. On regular radio he was doing five 4-hour shows in a week. Now he's doing four 5-hour shows in a week. That's 20 hours of live programing so your whiny argument is moot
THEN, there's all the specials, and extra shows that get put on Fridays as well as when they're off on holidays. Need I even mention "The History Of Howard Stern"?? That was an INCREDIBLE WEEK!! If you were really a fan as you say you are, you'd realize all the extra programming available to subscribers outside of his regular show.
Please, do us all a favour and STFU because your droning on grows extremely tiresome!
@ Artie Lange (the unfunny one)
Please stop whining about Stern only doing four shows a week. He's doing four 5-hour shows as compared to five 4-hour shows previously. That's 20 hours a week regardless of how you look at it.
Then, there's all the additional programming that happens on Fridays and when they're on vacation......programming which you never would have been able to enjoy had Stern not moved to Sirius.
The History of Howard Stern was absolutely amazing.......but if you're really a "fan" as you stated, you would know this already and wouldn't be complaining about how many days a week Stern is on the radio.
Ugh!!! Here I thought my original was deleted for using the F-Bomb, so I toned it down......oh well. Hopefully you get the point Artie.
No need to mention "The History of Howard Stern" because its going to be played again, next week, during another unannounced, week-long vacation. If he only works 200 day a year when there is actually another choice in the satrad market, how many days is he going to work when there is no other satrad option?
And I can't wait to hear the History special again! I plan on recording it with my Stiletto which I didn't have the first time it came on.
If you don't like Stern's work schedule, cancel your subscription. In other words, put up or shut up! Let your money do the talking instead of your mouth for a change!
I have no problems with Stern's schedule because it means there's more time to air specials and I'm particularly looking forward to the Game Show special that's coming up!
I live in College Station, TX and use Sirius and its amazing, the testerial stuff here is so horrible to the point I used to sometimes listen to staticy horrible stuff from Houston.
The sad fact is that if XM and Sirius don't merge one or maybe both will die and we will be stuck listening to crap or just listening to CDs.
Arbitron is not a good indicator of ratings. They take a random sampling of a small number of people who may or may not even own XM or Sirius and then multiply it by scale. It is in no way scientific. Sirius nor XM give them subscriber information. They get peoples names and addresses for this poll based on past Terrestrial Radio data of people who already filled out a survey.
Sirius who knows exactly who listens to what has stated on average there are 6 million listeners on average at any given moment when Stern is live and thats not including people listening over the internet (worldwide). It also doesnt include people in Canada.
That's what Sirius likes to claim, and yet they don't provide any information on their "method" for collecting their listener data, nor do they provide any of that data. What is more telling is that Sirius has had to cut advertising rates on Stern's show twice since he started, and he now gets only 1/2 of his original Sirius rate and 1/10 of what he used to command on his terrestrial radio. No one believes Stern is pulling 6 million listeners, including those who count the most - the advertisers. How many Forbes 100 or Dow corporations advertise with him? Landing blockbuster accounts like "Ashleymadison", "Clips4porn" and "Beesuticals" are hardly anything to crow about.
Of course the NAB is trying to stall it, they don't want any REAL competition to the drivel they call Radio. The delay tactic is to try and bankrupt XM and Sirius before they get the deal done.
Anyone defending the NAB is obviously wrong and anti consumer because with the merger the consumer wins, it's time we break the NAB/Clear Channel Monopoly on the Radio waves.
Wow, Artie Lange is a dick! He sure is funny on the radio.
I don't know how I feel about the merger.
My Sirius Stilleto runs so hot the batteries explode and I can't get support to do anything. I suspect with one Satellite radio company the service would only get worse. Also, I like the Sirius stations much better then the XM ones and some station are sure to get combined.
II can't say that consumers would be hurt otherwise in any way. If Stern was smart, he'd stop talking about it. He's not going to get a 1/2 billion deal with only one company around.
What I can't believe about other services like HD Radio is they don't understand, it's not about the delivery method. It's about the content and at the moment besides the exploding batteries, Sirius kicks ass!
Per usual, ad hominems FTW!
WHERE THE HELL IS THE RIAA?! DON'T THEY GET THAT THIS MERGER HELPS THE RECORD INDUSTRY BY GIVING THEM ANOTHER "CLEAN" OUTLET TO PEDAL THEIR WARES?! FOR COLD, HARD, TANGIBLE $$$$$$$ NO LESS! IT ALSO HELPS TO BREAK THE CLEAR CHANNEL STRANGLE HOLD AS WELL. NO, KEEP CHASING OLD LADIES AND THE TORRENT GHOSTS, FUX NUTZ!!!
Well those Arbitron ratings say Howard Stern is the most listened to station on all of satellite radio (XM+Sirius) combined, so that's kind of a weak argument saying he had little to do Sirius's growth in subscribers.
And as d0x360 says those Arbitron ratings aren't accurate by any means. Sirius has ways of knowing, and Stern's easily has around 6 million listeners. Just look at google trends almost some sort of guest or reference from his show ends up in google's top 100 trends almost everyday.
"Satrad is the only source for live, new, uncensored mobile content that offers uninterrupted, national coverage. Can I hear songs that I haven't already heard on my Ipod? No. "
Actually yes, ipod touches have wifi access and can access internet streams. Iphones have wifi, edge and 3g for accessing the same type of content, as do most people's cellphones nowadays. Laptops with wifi, or tethered to their phones internet connection all have the same access virtually anywhere.
"Can I get live sports and talk shows uncensored on my Ipod or from a terrestrial station? No. Do local terrestrial stations carry seamlessly across America? Obviously not."
So what's your point? People get what they pay for. Radio is free, satellite radio is a pay service. Hey you can watch public access channels for free, or you can pay for cable, or if you want commercial free movies and uncensored channels you pay extra for those channels as well. Just like public access channels don't compete with HBO. Is HBO a monopoly then?
"Satrad is a unique product that, while it may compete in a general sense for the attention of the public (that argument could be made ad infinitum; once could claim that watching grass grow is competition), does not compete in any way with other services currently available."
That's a weak argument, and a stretch. Sattelite radio is just one option in a wide market of audio entertainment. Radio, satellite radio, internet radio, itunes are all in the same market. Watching grass grow has nothing to do with the audio entertainment industry.
There's a seamless wifi networks that allows uninterrupted reception across the continent? Pick up a lot of open wifi hotspots while cruising around in your car, do you? You must be pretty adept at driving and fiddling with your laptop at the same time. Or maybe you have a really long cable that you spool out of the back of your car. Wifi is not seamless, rarely open (unless you're in the habit of stealing your signals), and requires that you remain within a small geographical area.
Even if wifi coverage or 3g service were ubiquitous and robust, the internet radio market is hardly developed enough to be considered a viable alternative. The programing available on satrad is unavailable in any other form on any other service. If you want uncensored, live music, sports, talk, and news, and you want it mobile and uninterrupted, your only option is satrad.
As for HBO being a monopoly, its not, because there is more than one pay cable channel available to the public, just like there is currently more than one satrad service available.
As for the claim that Arbitron isn't reliable, I ask you to provide me with data that is. What a surprise that satrad refutes underwhelming data, claims it has different, more complimentary data, then refuses to release it or the method it uses to gather it. If you question the veracity of Arbitron's method, you have to show me that another method is better.
Calling arguments "weak" does not make them so; they have to be supported with evidence. Just because you put "radio" at the end of a group of entertainment media doesn't mean they share a market. I've given you explicit differences in both the content and the delivery of satrad vis-a-vis any other service currently available. All you've done is quote me, then tell me I'm wrong.
WHERE THE HELL IS THE RIAA?! DON'T THEY GET THAT THIS MERGER HELPS THE RECORD INDUSTRY BY GIVING THEM ANOTHER "CLEAN" OUTLET TO PEDAL THEIR WARES?! FOR COLD, HARD, TANGIBLE $$$$$$$ NO LESS! IT ALSO HELPS TO BREAK THE CLEAR CHANNEL STRANGLE HOLD AS WELL. NO, KEEP CHASING OLD LADIES AND THE TORRENT GHOSTS, FRACK NUTZ!!!
I never cared about "SatRad" when it came out. I have a few friends who got one during "PS" (Pre Stern) and I was cool but I didn't want to shell out money for what I could already get for free.
But that was before Clear Channel decided to screw me over. See "TerRad" had one thing going for it. A wide dedicated fan base! The fans are the ones who would turn into a station and listen to it all because it was there station. My station was a "Rock" format which had been around for 25 years! I went to bed and the next morning it was "Spanish"! Not even a warning!
So now I have nothing but Rap, AM, Spanish and College radio (which is by far the bast station out of all of those but hgardly any range). So what do I listen to now? I am not alone! This has happened to people like you and me across the country.
So F.U. NAB and Clear Channel! When you screw over your fan base and they leave you for it you can't cry FOUL!
I still listen to the college radio when I can get the signal and I don't know whoever started the lie of "uninterupted" but I get a tree branch over my car I loss the signal. In a parking garage, loss the signal. Overpass, loss the signal. Also, with my unity I will have to change the fequency my unity is tuned to because "TerRad" will pop its ugly head and mess everything up. I have to retune my radio to find a potentical open frequency and then tune my radio.
Everyone stop pointing fingers at each other and yell at the FCC! How hard is it to walk up to people on the street and ask what they want and not listen to some suit who was paid to be there. Were not asking for the meaning of life, we just want you to rubber stamp this like our Gov does for everything. I find it hard to believe that the FCC really cares about me when they started listening to them suits.
Aw, Government and Corporations working hand 'n' hand to screw the little guy.
Someone needs to stop this merger! I don't care if it takes the self interest of the NAB to do it! Combining XM and Sirius creates a monopoly in Satelite radio anyway you look at it. It doesn't matter if people can choose to get their radio from another method. This whole thing is criminal. I don't understand why sites like Engadget want this deal to go through so badly anyway? Do you guys have stock?
Where I live if I want cable internet I have to use Comcast. This is a local monopoly. Sure I can get dsl from At&T, but I don't want dsl, I want cable. This is analogous to Artie Lange's statements in that if I want specific things that satellite radio offers and terrestrial doesn't, I have to pay for it, and the fact that cable companies are allowed to be the sole providers in areas for their specific services, not just cable tv or high speed internet in general proves that a single satellite company has to be allowed by the FCC.
Mobile media is mobile media, so pmps, satellite radio, terrestrial radio, internet radio via cellular connection, and cds(though I suppose you could just lump that in with pmps) are all options available to me. The funny thing is that the only free option is the one I won't even consider.
larry,
you don't have satellite radio, do you? it's obvious you don't. let us subscribers speak, we want the merger.
the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is the governmental body charged with protecting us from monopolies, already said that they will NOT be a monopoly.
are you working for the NAB or for a radio station, such as CBS or Clear Channel?
No one here believes that you are expressing your own opition.