-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
XM and Sirius Merger
- Thread starter FRR
- Start date
I found this on the Radio & Records site today. Is the merger a "done deal"?
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=AA%2feEfsKF7M%3d&Version=1
________________________
Radio stations come and go.
Does anything last forever?
www.PassTheWord.net
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=AA%2feEfsKF7M%3d&Version=1
________________________
Radio stations come and go.
Does anything last forever?
www.PassTheWord.net
I believe I read a headline in which Mel Karmazin expect the merger to close by Dec 31. I wonder when the forms will be available to start picking the "al a carte" offerings?
I wouldn't count on the FCC approving this deal. Just a hunch. I suspect Martin will vote for it, but I'm not sure about the rest of them.
I see it coming down to this: terrestrial AM & FM want even more consolidation - that is the crux of the SatRad merger.
If the AM & FM's get their way for more media consolidation, then the SatRad is a done deal; if the AM & FM's don't get more media consolidation, then the NAB will have a stroke if XM/Sirius happens, so their lobby won't have any of that.
The more I think about it, I'm kind of scared that Mel K will wreck XM as it is and we'll lose our niche channels.
If the AM & FM's get their way for more media consolidation, then the SatRad is a done deal; if the AM & FM's don't get more media consolidation, then the NAB will have a stroke if XM/Sirius happens, so their lobby won't have any of that.
The more I think about it, I'm kind of scared that Mel K will wreck XM as it is and we'll lose our niche channels.
with gary as chairman, it may not be real easy to just dump better quality channels. im all for tossing what makes sense based on real logic.
both companys claim publicly they need more people today as stand alone operations and that position will most likely continue with growth..
first i would look for a freez on talent and the related support staff. its the last area a smart companie would cut..
lee will have his hands full trying to fine tune the total line up.. they claim great savings will come from the expanded in house content plan.
all other support areas would fall pray to the reaper. sales, distribution,research,marketing,purchasing, accounting etc. its a real long list.
this whole issue is really about the dual devices and the mandate the fcc failed to enforce. it was a nice concept for the public. Im not so sure the fcc can just rubber stamp the merger.prior to airing what went wrong on this issue as both companies often made comments on the devices are on the way.
the fcc even went as far as suggesting the use of a more common satellite system for both services to facilitate faster time to market at a lower total cost...now sirius states no merger no device..
if this is their position today, the fcc must now demand full disclosure to discover the true nature of this failure and if one or both of these companies stone-walled on the device issue..they should pay the price for that action.That said i do think this deal gets done.
the nab needs to be honest and direct,they often only speak in seeking protections for broadcasters..they need to begin to be advocates of open networks for "content" which will cross all digital platforms..you cant have it both ways and some battels should be left alone. just for the sake of public perception.
honestly just maybe, the nab needs to re-think its program based on logic for a digital world where the end user pulls a selection of content based on quality, wants, and needs.its no longer a push world for bad content so fighting to protect it,is a real waste of broadcasters funds.
my perception of the nab is they have now reached the same low hit by the riaa.
I only wish the real broadcasters left in the game large or small embrace the publicly honestly with truth and quality content based on the real art of radio.
both companys claim publicly they need more people today as stand alone operations and that position will most likely continue with growth..
first i would look for a freez on talent and the related support staff. its the last area a smart companie would cut..
lee will have his hands full trying to fine tune the total line up.. they claim great savings will come from the expanded in house content plan.
all other support areas would fall pray to the reaper. sales, distribution,research,marketing,purchasing, accounting etc. its a real long list.
this whole issue is really about the dual devices and the mandate the fcc failed to enforce. it was a nice concept for the public. Im not so sure the fcc can just rubber stamp the merger.prior to airing what went wrong on this issue as both companies often made comments on the devices are on the way.
the fcc even went as far as suggesting the use of a more common satellite system for both services to facilitate faster time to market at a lower total cost...now sirius states no merger no device..
if this is their position today, the fcc must now demand full disclosure to discover the true nature of this failure and if one or both of these companies stone-walled on the device issue..they should pay the price for that action.That said i do think this deal gets done.
the nab needs to be honest and direct,they often only speak in seeking protections for broadcasters..they need to begin to be advocates of open networks for "content" which will cross all digital platforms..you cant have it both ways and some battels should be left alone. just for the sake of public perception.
honestly just maybe, the nab needs to re-think its program based on logic for a digital world where the end user pulls a selection of content based on quality, wants, and needs.its no longer a push world for bad content so fighting to protect it,is a real waste of broadcasters funds.
my perception of the nab is they have now reached the same low hit by the riaa.
I only wish the real broadcasters left in the game large or small embrace the publicly honestly with truth and quality content based on the real art of radio.
See today's R and R for more information the mass media department of the FCC is requesting from these two companies. This is hardly a done deal although some want it to be that way.
I read the request much of the material requested is normal stuff,then some of it is specific to the lines of information that uselectronics suggested be looked at.
based on what i read, it should provide a clear answer to what took place with interoperable devices.
tracking back thru statements in sec docs and public press articles, one of the companys made comments in calendar year 2000 that only some devices would be dual based on the fcc mandate and talks with the fcc.
boy thats not along the lines of what was mandated or the vision of the fcc,from the outset one company tried to limit the concept even in the press....the other company in its sec filings and many public comments indicated it was working the issue as mandated till around 2004.
then the context of the sec documents changed to a couple of lines of information ,which remain today.
that said they still spoke publicly about the issue and even offered updated timelines at shareholder meetings and conferences as to when to expect devices...they even went as far as claiming a device would reach the market from the joint venture company by the end of 06. which was inline with joe claytons comments of by 07 made publicly in early 05 during ces.
both companys are trying now to claim the fcc order was to design "a device" not to deliver it for commercial use, which they did by the end of calendar year 03 based on patents, please.......what crap, the fcc cant let that position go un punished in some fashion.
the document request for the second time warns both companys not to try and hide information under cover of the protective order which has been abused or used way to often.
Im thinking the fcc was asleep at the wheel or they had access to other information which has not been made public yet...I do know they requested from both companys a detailed timeline for the devices in march 05.
but something stinks surrounding the dual device issue and honestly it looks to me like the fcc gave these guys all the leverage required to really bring a strong product to market with a shared cost basis..
the public should have the truth...
based on what i read, it should provide a clear answer to what took place with interoperable devices.
tracking back thru statements in sec docs and public press articles, one of the companys made comments in calendar year 2000 that only some devices would be dual based on the fcc mandate and talks with the fcc.
boy thats not along the lines of what was mandated or the vision of the fcc,from the outset one company tried to limit the concept even in the press....the other company in its sec filings and many public comments indicated it was working the issue as mandated till around 2004.
then the context of the sec documents changed to a couple of lines of information ,which remain today.
that said they still spoke publicly about the issue and even offered updated timelines at shareholder meetings and conferences as to when to expect devices...they even went as far as claiming a device would reach the market from the joint venture company by the end of 06. which was inline with joe claytons comments of by 07 made publicly in early 05 during ces.
both companys are trying now to claim the fcc order was to design "a device" not to deliver it for commercial use, which they did by the end of calendar year 03 based on patents, please.......what crap, the fcc cant let that position go un punished in some fashion.
the document request for the second time warns both companys not to try and hide information under cover of the protective order which has been abused or used way to often.
Im thinking the fcc was asleep at the wheel or they had access to other information which has not been made public yet...I do know they requested from both companys a detailed timeline for the devices in march 05.
but something stinks surrounding the dual device issue and honestly it looks to me like the fcc gave these guys all the leverage required to really bring a strong product to market with a shared cost basis..
the public should have the truth...
Our government is good at delaying decisions. Mel says he'll sue if the FCC doesn't give the merger the okay. So how about this, the FCC just delays the decision...for years! I would say that was fair but then again I'm not a stockholder, just an XM customer, for now anyway.
mel made that statement for many reasons they have recently struck deals and sealed documents that relate directly to the pending merger.....why because they are either hiding the truth about the availability of interoperable/dual units for some reason, or they lied to shareholders over the last seven years...
either way the public and shareholders should be giving the truth....
either way the public and shareholders should be giving the truth....
- Status