HD, XM, and Sirius

[Hillbillicus]

Wow, just wow......

http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=140536&pt=todaysnews

 

[JohnnyElectron]

RadioInk reports: "iBiquity Asks FCC To Require HD In Satellite Receivers"

Well, then should XM/Sirius ask the FCC to require Satellite Receivers in all HD radios?

If the NAB was smart, they would have asked to FCC 15 years ago to have minimum quality standards for the AM band in all radios that had stereo FM too?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Radioman100]

RadioInk reports: "iBiquity Asks FCC To Require HD In Satellite Receivers"

Well, then should XM/Sirius ask the FCC to require Satellite Receivers in all HD radios?

If the NAB was smart, they would have asked to FCC 15 years ago to have minimum quality standards for the AM band in all radios that had stereo FM too?

Where do you draw the line?

The radio industry isn't asking that FCC rules be changed in favor of a bailout either. The sat radio industry IS.

The issue at hand is paid inclusion of technology - financial incentive to include XM and Sirius rather than letting the marketplace decide. As radio as an industry is decentralized and has no vehicle for paid inclusion, this is an unfair, anti-competitive practice.

I don't see this happening, but I do think it may be a poison pill that brings about some scrutiny of the anti-competitive deals the satcasters make with the automakers.

The right thing to ask for rather than HD inclusion would have been a provision in the merger terms that require sat radio exclusion from paid-for sweetheart deals with the automakers, and that all the deals currently in place terminate.

 

[Savage]

I see lawyers, seeking fat potential settlements, making lazy circles in the sky.

First stop: the FCC - "make them include HD in their technology! Make them do it at their expense!"

Next stop, as soon as the FCC shoots iBiquity down: federal court, with anticompetitive whining.

The last refuge of scoundrels trying to force unwanted business conditions on the marketplace is to go shop for a judge who will hand them what they want on a silver platter. The irony here is, even if HD wins at either level, they lose. Unless they get judgments against every radio listener forcing them to buy and listen to HD under penalty of law.

How is satcasters' deal with automakers a "sweetheart" deal? They made a deal, just like automakers make deals with tire manufacturers to provide x-million units at x-price, or for upholstery or electrical components or whatever. One value is exchanged for another value in a manner which makes sense for the parties. iBiquity could do the same - IF it offered something carmakers and their customers wanted.

 

[clouseau]

The last refuge of scoundrels trying to force unwanted business conditions on the marketplace is to go shop for a judge who will hand them what they want on a silver platter.

Well the Satcasters ARE looking to change the law to get the business conditions they want, but have we really sunken to the "Scoundrells" thing?

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

Just a literary reference to Revolutionary-era figure Samuel Johnson, Inspector. Nothing personal.

The phrase "the last refuge of scoundrels" was a general nod to those who want to impose artificial constraints on the marketing of products, services or ideas, using regulatory bodies or court mandates. To do so invariably increases costs, regulatory nuttiness, and unjustly enriches trial lawyers, all at our general expense and disadvantage. If the phrase fits satcasters, carmakers, iBiquity or Leonard Kahn, so be it.

I plead guilty to failure to place quotation marks around the quote and thereby throw myself on the mercy of posters.

 

[clouseau]

Just a literary reference to Revolutionary-era figure Samuel Johnson, Inspector. Nothing personal.

The phrase "the last refuge of scoundrels" was a general nod to those who want to impose artificial constraints on the marketing of products, services or ideas, using regulatory bodies or court mandates. To do so invariably increases costs, regulatory nuttiness, and unjustly enriches trial lawyers, all at our general expense and disadvantage. If the phrase fits satcasters, carmakers, iBiquity or Leonard Kahn, so be it.

I plead guilty to failure to place quotation marks around the quote and thereby throw myself on the mercy of posters.

Stand up, Savage, I think it went over your head?

Maybe not.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

Oh, sure. A little obtuse, but droll just the same.

Were we talking about each other on this board, or about HD, XM & Sirius?

 

[KB1OKL]

To get back to the point of this thread: I think it is a simple as the fact that people want satellite in their cars and don't want IBOC. The IBOC alliance in it's desperate bid to somehow stay alive is trying to force their inclusion in a successful venture that people know of and want, they are trying to cling to satellite's coat tails. it's that simple. Too may people here have drank the nefariously inviting nectar of IBOC and can't see clearly.

 

[Play Freebird]

How is satcasters' deal with automakers a "sweetheart" deal? They made a deal, just like automakers make deals with tire manufacturers to provide x-million units at x-price, or for upholstery or electrical components or whatever. One value is exchanged for another value in a manner which makes sense for the parties. iBiquity could do the same - IF it offered something carmakers and their customers wanted.

Besides that, some have argued that iBiquity already got a very "sweet" deal from the Federal Government, allowing them to retain undisclosed rights to their technology, while having it chosen by the FCC as a defacto standard (possibly violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution), so I find it amusing that iBiquity is now accusing satcasters of pulling a fast one with the automakers.

For background, see the well-researched personal comments of Jonathan Hardis (who is employed by NIST), beginning on page 22:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518010460

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

I think it is a simple as the fact that people want satellite in their cars and don't want IBOC. The IBOC alliance in it's desperate bid to somehow stay alive is trying to force their inclusion in a successful venture that people know of and want, they are trying to cling to satellite's coat tails. it's that simple. Too may people here have drank the nefariously inviting nectar of IBOC and can't see clearly.

What the general public has figured out (even if the stauch pro-ibocers have not)...is that at the moment...the cost/benefit ratio heavily favors Satellite radio, and not digital audio broadcasting.

Simply put, the public percieves XM/Sirius as being a much better value for money.

As for any scheme to get IBOC 'piggybacked' onto other platforms.......There's an old Irish expression: "Be careful what you ask for...for you shall surely get it".

AM essentially begged to be included with FM in any in-band digital audio broadcasting system......Look how WELL that one turned out!

 

[Radioman100]

To get back to the point of this thread: I think it is a simple as the fact that people want satellite in their cars and don't want IBOC. The IBOC alliance in it's desperate bid to somehow stay alive is trying to force their inclusion in a successful venture that people know of and want, they are trying to cling to satellite's coat tails. it's that simple. Too may people here have drank the nefariously inviting nectar of IBOC and can't see clearly.

Wrong. If satellite radio in new cars was being driven by consumer demand, there would likely be no satellite radio in new cars. What are they up to now? 15 million subscribers - many of them new car freebies. Given that the US population is around 300 million, that's not much demand. Their churn is also very high. It seems not many new car buyers renew with paid subscriptions after their free ones run out.

The only reason satellite radio is in cars now is the satcasters dropped trou when the automakers said "You want it in our cars? Pay us!" It's also one of the many reasons the satcasters need the merger so desperately. Make no mistake. They're bleeding red ink.

 

[dbdigital]

That's really generous of iBiquity to not take a "formal stand" on the XM/Sirius merger given that the two satcasters pay a fee to iBiquity for licensing some of their technology.

But then, like the vendor from hell, iBiquity objects that two of their clients are making successful inroads into an industry they want a piece of and insist the government help them out by forcing their clients to tack on a technology that is totally useless to them.

Can anything be more pathetic than that? The only way that XM and Sirius should handle this is for them both to say: "Sure we'll add HD Radio IF you cancel out the license fees we pay you AND you pay us a fee for adding HD-R to our receivers."

I think that's fair and its certainly an arrangement iBiquity can understand.

db

 

[R.F. Burns]

If XM & Sirius are SO successful, why do they need to merge into a single company?

 

[Savage]

Great! So now it's iBiquity's turn to "drop trou" since the precedent has been set with carmakers! As the HD people argue, "as satcasters go, so also should HD Radio."

It would be nice to see iBiquity dropping trou instead of making listeners and broadcasters go pantless.