Protecting The Downtrodden

[Element9]

NAB corrals 72 House members.
A letter signed by 72 house members is on its way to the FCC, the DOJ and the FTC opposing the proposed XM-Sirius merger. Written by Reps. Gene Greene (D-TX) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) at the behest of the NAB - the letter says the merger "would create a monopoly which would be devastating to consumers." Among the 72 who signed the letter - 47 are Democrats. The other 25 are in the GOP.

"...would create a monopoly which would be devastating to consumers."

:

The poor NAB. The poor terrestrial radio monoliths. A moment of reverent silence for Clear Channel, Entercom, CBS, Citadel, Cumulus and Emmis, protectors and defenders of broadcasting in the public interest, convenience and necessity. How will they ever survive if the XM-Sirius merger is approved by the FCC, DOJ and FTC. The whole kettle of fish reeks of hypocrisy. It should be to no one's surprise, this being the way legislation and legislators are influenced in Washington.

-9-

_________________________________________________

Element9 dabbles in radio, the media and Labatt Blue Canadian Lager and occasionally posts on the Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Rochester board.

 

[nhradiochild]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're implying.

Maybe I'm revelling in my own naivety, but it doesn't seem to me that terrestrial radio was the top concern when deciding what devastation it would bring to consumers.

If they had factored that in, perhaps the powers that be should not have brought into question that a single satellite radio service would affect the consumers it caters to. In fact, it almost appears that they view them as separate as Radio and TV.

From their assumed viewpoint, satellite radio consumers could see an ultimate demise in service and would be subject to exhorbitant costs for lackluster performance. But... this is not a telephone company. There are so many other alternatives for roughly the same service, terrestrial radio included, that a single satellite radio service wouldn't really be a bad thing.

Unless they already had the mindset of packing it in for terrestrial signals.

 

[WhiskeyRobber]

http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1843031620070619

By Brooks Boliek

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - More than 70 lawmakers on Monday urged antitrust authorities to block the proposed merger of the nation's two satellite radio companies, contending that the deal is anticompetitive.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin, 72 members of Congress expressed their opposition to the XM-Sirius deal, saying it would harm consumers.

"On its face, we believe that sanctioning the marriage of the only competitors in the satellite radio market would create a monopoly, which would be devastating to consumers," the lawmakers said.

 

[cabradio]

NAB corrals 72 House members.
A letter signed by 72 house members is on its way to the FCC, the DOJ and the FTC opposing the proposed XM-Sirius merger. Written by Reps. Gene Greene (D-TX) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) at the behest of the NAB - the letter says the merger "would create a monopoly which would be devastating to consumers." Among the 72 who signed the letter - 47 are Democrats. The other 25 are in the GOP.

"...would create a monopoly which would be devastating to consumers."

:

The poor NAB. The poor terrestrial radio monoliths. A moment of reverent silence for Clear Channel, Entercom, CBS, Citadel, Cumulus and Emmis, protectors and defenders of broadcasting in the public interest, convenience and necessity. How will they ever survive if the XM-Sirius merger is approved by the FCC, DOJ and FTC. The whole kettle of fish reeks of hypocrisy. It should be to no one's surprise, this being the way legislation and legislators are influenced in Washington.

-9-

_________________________________________________

Element9 dabbles in radio, the media and Labatt Blue Canadian Lager and occasionally posts on the Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Rochester board.

I agree. Since when is the NAB an advocate for consumers? They are merely the voice for corporate radio. As a consumer, I do not want to have to purchase two services in order to recieve all the channels I like. And if keeping them seperate means I may lose channels I like, then I think the merger is necessary.

Keeping them seperate means similarly that we should have to purchase from multiple cable tv companies in order to get all the programming you want. But we can't do that, can we... If the NAB wants the satellite radio companies to remain seperate, why doesn't the NAB also work in the consumer's interest to force multiple cable systems to operate in the same area to prevent "monolpolies"?

 

[number one fan]

I agree. Since when is the NAB an advocate for consumers? They are merely the voice for corporate radio. As a consumer, I do not want to have to purchase two services in order to recieve all the channels I like. And if keeping them seperate means I may lose channels I like, then I think the merger is necessary.

Keeping them seperate means similarly that we should have to purchase from multiple cable tv companies in order to get all the programming you want. But we can't do that, can we... If the NAB wants the satellite radio companies to remain seperate, why doesn't the NAB also work in the consumer's interest to force multiple cable systems to operate in the same area to prevent "monolpolies"?

Absolutely.

This is not unlike the situation the NFL and AFL got themselves into in the 60s.

But let me add that the NAB and their congressional flunkies (as usual) overlook the easy and obvious solution.

DirecTV and Dish only relay programs. There may be (and have been) corporate connections to program producers and channel operators, but the satellite TV systems are only in the business of relaying OPC (Other People's Channels). Same with major cable operators and the telephone operating companies getting into fiber optics.

But the satellite radio companies got themselves into the business of producing programming and then got themselves into a bidding war for talent and content. Their strategy was to compete on the basis of exclusive content. It was a dumb move as lots of people (like you and I) did not want to have to chose between baseball or football, Howard or O&A, talk show host X or talk show host Y. In a classic approach-approach conflict, we sit on the sidelines unwilling to make the forced choice offered by these two competitors.

Now the satellite radio geniuses want the government to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into (and, in the process, give them the chance to really screw the customer).

The obvious solution: Follow the satellite TV model. Each company must make all content available to the other (just as channel operators with a corporate link to cable must make their channels available to satellite TV) on a cost-competitive basis. Both can carry football and baseball. Both can carry Howard and O&A. The companies compete on pricing, package offerings, service and technology; but not on program availability. The bidding war ends. Sanity applies to new talent/programming contracts and to renewals of current contracts. The two satellite companies don't need to merge to survive. Yes, there are details that would need to be worked out but that's what lawyers and accountants are for.