Mt. Wilson Files Against Satellite Merger

[Carmine5]

Ah, Saul Levine. What a card. Just gotta smile at his latest stunt. In this case it's filling a petition with the FCC to reconsider the satcaster merger.

According to the article in FMQB:

"The company (Mt. Wilson Broadcasters) claims that the conditions are inadequate and that Sirius XM should also be subject to the same rules as terrestrial radio when it comes to "the use of unauthorized frequencies to air indecent programming."

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=884757

Someone should have told Saul not to bother. The way XM/Sirius stocks are plummeting to earth, they'll be bankrupt before too long.

C5

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Good timing. Its like disputing a strike call from the 2005 Baseball season.

 

[nmoore6676]

Good timing. Its like disputing a strike call from the 2005 Baseball season.

It is a suit to "RECONSIDER" as in rethink a decision after the fact. Unlike baseball where this is not done our legal system allows an after the fact challenge. This is how lawyers make money but in some cases, like the innocent guy sentenced to death row it is a good thing. Here I'm not so sure, if it were say Clear Channel or CBS with deeper pockets than Saul Levine it might go somewhere and CBS has a horse in the race (to mix in another sports metaphor) because of Howard Stern.

 

[ercjncpr]

A desperate publicity stunt

 

[Carmine5]

It may be that Saul is doing this in anticipation that a Democrat could possibly be in the White House. Should that happen, then a Democrat-dominated FCC might re-examine the merger. We know the two Democratic Commissioners voted against it.

Of course, the point of imposing terrestrial radio standards of decency on satellite radio has been argued before without success. It may be that the free channels will have to abide by the standards, though, but not a subscription service.

But the action of filing this petition is moot, I think. Reports indicate that XM/Sirius is imploding. You can already see Mel stitching together his golden parachute and getting set to bail.

C5

 

[davideduardo]

Reports indicate that XM/Sirius is imploding. You can already see Mel stitching together his golden parachute and getting set to bail.

Actually, XM and Sirius as a combined entity is closer to positive cash flow than ever. At no point in the last 7 years were either entity profitable, so approaching a break even on operations is a milestone. Unfortunately, satellite is being lumped with all radio in the equities markets, so further equity financing is very very unlikely.

Stock prices often do not reflect the value of a company, particularly in a recession. To say Sirius XM is imploding is not just an exaggeration, it is just not truthful.

 

[Carmine5]

Reports indicate that XM/Sirius is imploding. You can already see Mel stitching together his golden parachute and getting set to bail.

Actually, XM and Sirius as a combined entity is closer to positive cash flow than ever. At no point in the last 7 years were either entity profitable, so approaching a break even on operations is a milestone. Unfortunately, satellite is being lumped with all radio in the equities markets, so further equity financing is very very unlikely.

Stock prices often do not reflect the value of a company, particularly in a recession. To say Sirius XM is imploding is not just an exaggeration, it is just not truthful.

My comment is based, in part, on this article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2008/09/11/the-signal-fades-at-sirius-xm.aspx

I would consider any statement that claims hundreds of millions of dollars in projected revenue without any proof of it as means to raise share price and restore investor confidence as untruthful.

C5

 

[nmoore6676]

It may be that Saul is doing this in anticipation that a Democrat could possibly be in the White House. Should that happen, then a Democrat-dominated FCC might re-examine the merger. We know the two Democratic Commissioners voted against it.

Of course, the point of imposing terrestrial radio standards of decency on satellite radio has been argued before without success. It may be that the free channels will have to abide by the standards, though, but not a subscription service.

But the action of filing this petition is moot, I think. Reports indicate that XM/Sirius is imploding. You can already see Mel stitching together his golden parachute and getting set to bail.

C5

From when I was working in the Cable TV field there was considerable argument that if you were paying for content which was delivered in a somewhat secure manner that you should get whatever you wanted. The difference was that in those days the FCC did little with cable TV deferring to the local authorities (City / County) and there some pressure was put on them not to carry adult content (Playboy, Tuxedo, etc.) In some cases subscribers filed suits and won, in others the regulators prevailed. Over the years because Cable started providing telephone and internet which fall into FCC regulatory territory the local authorities have lost most of their control. The current FCC leans toward allowing all content so long as controls are available to prevent children from viewing inappropriate material. I doubt that changing FCC decency standards will be high on the agenda of whichever candidate gets to the White House.

In this case it could boil down to whether adequate provisions are in place to keep kids from hearing, say Howard Stern. But I don't see Mount Wilson being willing (or able) to pay the bills to really pursue this to any type of conclusion which would overturn whatever has already gone down. I don't think satellite radio will go away, however expensive programming, like Stern, may have to go and it may very well become a big multichannel I-pod in the sky. I also do not see an Obama presidency being all that more friendly to Saul Levine than to Mel Karmazin, who I think in the area of money still will walk away with a lot more in the bank than Mr. Levine. In politics on both sides of the aisle money talks. Though Karmazin has always been a maverick broadcaster (putting on Stern was a big gamble) he has also played the game better and has walked away with a lot more lovely parting gifts at every stage of the contest.

I see that David has weighed in addressing the financial aspects so I defer.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Good timing. Its like disputing a strike call from the 2005 Baseball season.

It is a suit to "RECONSIDER" as in rethink a decision after the fact. Unlike baseball where this is not done our legal system allows an after the fact challenge. This is how lawyers make money but in some cases, like the innocent guy sentenced to death row it is a good thing. Here I'm not so sure, if it were say Clear Channel or CBS with deeper pockets than Saul Levine it might go somewhere and CBS has a horse in the race (to mix in another sports metaphor) because of Howard Stern.

Yes, but where was Saul during vocal opposition from the NAB to the actual merger? And why would imposing indecency restrictions have anything to do with the merger? Its a different issue. Whether satellite radio such be subject to the same indecency statutes as broadcast radio (which it should not) should have no bearing on who own what properties. What does CBS have to do with Stern these days?

If there's any lawsuit, it should be the stockholders of XM/Sirius vs. the FCC for allowing the merger to be held up for such an outrageously longtime.
It was over 12 months longer than ANY decision in FCC history, and the longest time any merger has waited for government approval (including Exxon-Mobil).
It took months ever AFTER the DOJ approved it.
As a result, both companies lost value and vendors and potential consumers took a "wait to see what happens" attitude while the companies hemorraged cash for months and months. The FCC should be ashamed of its indecisiveness on this issue.

 

[nmoore6676]

Good timing. Its like disputing a strike call from the 2005 Baseball season.

It is a suit to "RECONSIDER" as in rethink a decision after the fact. Unlike baseball where this is not done our legal system allows an after the fact challenge. This is how lawyers make money but in some cases, like the innocent guy sentenced to death row it is a good thing. Here I'm not so sure, if it were say Clear Channel or CBS with deeper pockets than Saul Levine it might go somewhere and CBS has a horse in the race (to mix in another sports metaphor) because of Howard Stern.

Yes, but where was Saul during vocal opposition from the NAB to the actual merger? And why would imposing indecency restrictions have anything to do with the merger? Its a different issue. Whether satellite radio such be subject to the same indecency statutes as broadcast radio (which it should not) should have no bearing on who own what properties. What does CBS have to do with Stern these days?

If there's any lawsuit, it should be the stockholders of XM/Sirius vs. the FCC for allowing the merger to be held up for such an outrageously longtime.
It was over 12 months longer than ANY decision in FCC history, and the longest time any merger has waited for government approval (including Exxon-Mobil).
It took months ever AFTER the DOJ approved it.
As a result, both companies lost value and vendors and potential consumers took a "wait to see what happens" attitude while the companies hemorraged cash for months and months. The FCC should be ashamed of its indecisiveness on this issue.

The part about Howard has to do only with the fact that his defection to satellite was a major blow to CBS radio, audience wise and financially so they have a grievance whereas Saul Levine's Mount Wilson FM Broadcasters do not. He is the one raising objections based on indecent content as to why the merger should be undone.

You are correct about the FCC hurting the stock values because they couldn't come to a decision however unless Saul Levine is a stockholder that is again not his concern. However the real issue for investors may well be if the numbers of subscribers will justify the costs of expensive talent like Stern and Oprah. That means that even as a single entity they may have to become more of audio jukebox with perhaps live sports programming as a selling point to compete with MP3 players.

 

[SandyG]

Maybe if Saul Levine actually had ratings, and then lost ratings because of the XM/Sirius merger he'd have a gripe. I don't even see KGIL showing up in the ratings at all.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

You're right about the cable thing. The decency standard is not any reason to reconsider the merger. The odd thing about the NAB's pressure on the commission to not approve the merger in the first place, was the contention that it would create a MONOPOLY since satellite and terrestrial radio didn't really compete with each other. Now it seems that the fear by broadcasters is that it does. Well, if terrestrial radio truly is competition, then its not a monopoly after all.

Isn't this concern over what satellite radio's regulations are or aren't just another example of a broadcaster paying more attention to what the other guy is doing rather than what he's doing himself? If satellite is required to adhere to the same decency standards as those broadcasting terrestrially, that improves Saul's country ratings in LA how??

 

[Carmine5]

It may be that Saul is doing this in anticipation that a Democrat could possibly be in the White House. Should that happen, then a Democrat-dominated FCC might re-examine the merger. We know the two Democratic Commissioners voted against it.

Of course, the point of imposing terrestrial radio standards of decency on satellite radio has been argued before without success. It may be that the free channels will have to abide by the standards, though, but not a subscription service.

But the action of filing this petition is moot, I think. Reports indicate that XM/Sirius is imploding. You can already see Mel stitching together his golden parachute and getting set to bail.

C5

From when I was working in the Cable TV field there was considerable argument that if you were paying for content which was delivered in a somewhat secure manner that you should get whatever you wanted. The difference was that in those days the FCC did little with cable TV deferring to the local authorities (City / County) and there some pressure was put on them not to carry adult content (Playboy, Tuxedo, etc.) In some cases subscribers filed suits and won, in others the regulators prevailed. Over the years because Cable started providing telephone and internet which fall into FCC regulatory territory the local authorities have lost most of their control. The current FCC leans toward allowing all content so long as controls are available to prevent children from viewing inappropriate material. I doubt that changing FCC decency standards will be high on the agenda of whichever candidate gets to the White House.

In this case it could boil down to whether adequate provisions are in place to keep kids from hearing, say Howard Stern. But I don't see Mount Wilson being willing (or able) to pay the bills to really pursue this to any type of conclusion which would overturn whatever has already gone down. I don't think satellite radio will go away, however expensive programming, like Stern, may have to go and it may very well become a big multichannel I-pod in the sky. I also do not see an Obama presidency being all that more friendly to Saul Levine than to Mel Karmazin, who I think in the area of money still will walk away with a lot more in the bank than Mr. Levine. In politics on both sides of the aisle money talks. Though Karmazin has always been a maverick broadcaster (putting on Stern was a big gamble) he has also played the game better and has walked away with a lot more lovely parting gifts at every stage of the contest.

I see that David has weighed in addressing the financial aspects so I defer.

I forgot to add this link to an article I had read a few days ago regarding the XM/Sirius mess.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={C3500BAC-A250-41D3-AE44-055B7808A947}

If XM/Sirius were under new, competent management, it might, just might have a chance. But the satcaster is run by the same people who have run it from its beginning as separate companies. Same management, same problems.

Saul may want to censor subscription content but is it good policy to let the government do this? We all know what a magnificent job the FCC has done so far, as "nipplegate" attests. Do we want to give the government even more censorship power, even for a good cause like "protecting the kids?"

As I see it, a far more troublesome trend is kids having free and easy access to the internet via smartphones. They are free to download anything well away from parental supervision. But do we now want the government censoring the internet? Some have suggested that it be done as a means of "protecting the kids", but what starts out as 'protecting children' could very well end up censoring content unfavorable to the Administration under the guise of "protecting the citizens." China and Russia would be proud of us should that happen.

Saul and those groups who think we need more censorship from the government need to leave it alone.

C5