"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

[700WLW]

"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

"If the merger draws more listeners, that clearly would be bad news for terrestrial radio stations already dealing with the Internet and Ipod, and could imperil their fledgling high-definition initiative."

http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=00880&NoFrame=1

 

[EasyPeazy]

"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

"If the merger draws more listeners, that clearly would be bad news for terrestrial radio stations already dealing with the Internet and Ipod, and could imperil their fledgling high-definition initiative."

http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=00880&NoFrame=1

Not likely.

Keep in mind why XM and Sirius want the merger in the first place - they're both bleeding red ink.

Every indication we've had says the merger will mean higher rates for satellite radio customers as the satcasters start pricing their "premium" services like MLB, NFL and shock jocks like Stern on an à la carte basis. That would likely turn customers away.

That's if the merger happens at all. It's impossible under current FCC rules and the satcasters are currently in Congress trying to explain why their proposed monopoly isn't a monopoly.

 

[700WLW]

"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

"If the merger draws more listeners, that clearly would be bad news for terrestrial radio stations already dealing with the Internet and Ipod, and could imperil their fledgling high-definition initiative."

http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=00880&NoFrame=1

Not likely.

Keep in mind why XM and Sirius want the merger in the first place - they're both bleeding red ink.

Every indication we've had says the merger will mean higher rates for satellite radio customers as the satcasters start pricing their "premium" services like MLB, NFL and shock jocks like Stern on an à la carte basis. That would likely turn customers away.

That's if the merger happens at all. It's impossible under current FCC rules and the satcasters are currently in Congress trying to explain why their proposed monopoly isn't a monopoly.

"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

“If these two satellite radio stations come together and build a stronger brand around enhanced content, they should be in great shape,” said Robert Unmacht, principal of IN3 Partners Inc., a Nashville, Tenn.-based media and investment banking consultancy... Industry experts said there are signs the deal could come to fruition by year’s end. Under the Bush administration, antitrust regulators have challenged few deals."

http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=00880&NoFrame=1

The article indicates that the merger will probably happen.

"Satellite Radio subscriber rate tap-dance"

"So, as I predicted previously, the average rate paid by a subscriber - averaging the highs and lows - will likely rise by two to three dollars per sub. Now, is this an argument why Sirius and XM should not merge? Absolutely not."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/satellite_radio.html#comments

 

[EasyPeazy]

"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

“If these two satellite radio stations come together and build a stronger brand around enhanced content, they should be in great shape,” said Robert Unmacht, principal of IN3 Partners Inc., a Nashville, Tenn.-based media and investment banking consultancy... Industry experts said there are signs the deal could come to fruition by year’s end. Under the Bush administration, antitrust regulators have challenged few deals."

http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=00880&NoFrame=1

The article indicates that the merger will probably happen.

"Satellite Radio subscriber rate tap-dance"

"So, as I predicted previously, the average rate paid by a subscriber - averaging the highs and lows - will likely rise by two to three dollars per sub. Now, is this an argument why Sirius and XM should not merge? Absolutely not."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/satellite_radio.html#comments

Why don't you try worrying about it after the merger happens (or not.) Anthing that is said now is just idle speculation.

Grasping at straws IMO.

 

[R.F. Burns]

"XM-Sirius merger is threat to local HD radio"

“If these two satellite radio stations come together and build a stronger brand around enhanced content, they should be in great shape,” said Robert Unmacht, principal of IN3 Partners Inc., a Nashville, Tenn.-based media and investment banking consultancy... Industry experts said there are signs the deal could come to fruition by year’s end. Under the Bush administration, antitrust regulators have challenged few deals."

http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframes/FrontEndArticlesDetailPage.aspx?ArticleID=00880&NoFrame=1

The article indicates that the merger will probably happen.

"Satellite Radio subscriber rate tap-dance"

"So, as I predicted previously, the average rate paid by a subscriber - averaging the highs and lows - will likely rise by two to three dollars per sub. Now, is this an argument why Sirius and XM should not merge? Absolutely not."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/03/satellite_radio.html#comments

Why don't you try worrying about it after the merger happens (or not.) Anthing that is said now is just idle speculation.

Grasping at straws IMO.

By the way, combined both sat providers have a very small portion of the overall audience. Both are in deep financial trouble. Terrestrial radio still dwarfs it's competition numbers wise. Let's not be so quick to declare the patient dead yet. Oh, can I currently get my local news, weather, sports results from either XM or Sirius? Will the combined company offer this service? Will they do it for free like my current radio does? If you don't work in the industry how can you answer these questions by the way. It's like my telling you what Sears plans are for the coming year or two.

 

[PhilJSmith67]

Satellite Radio is a competitive threat to Terrestrial Radio. To use a fourth-grader retort... "DUH." There really is no point for this thread specifically targetting HD Radio.

 

[Mike Walker]

Exactly Phillip. The total impact of Satellite on terrestrial radio is difficult to measure in any given market. The total number of listeners comes up about the same as before the satellites launched. Just because something is good for satellite radio (combining the two companies would help reduce costs, leading HOPEFULLY to profitability) doesn't mean it's bad for terrestrial radio (and HD IS terrestrial radio!). The combined company will have EXACTLY the same number of listeners. Not only that, subscribing to XM or Sirius doesn't mean you quit listening to terrestrial radio. I am a longtime XM subscriber. I also listen to internet radio (and have subscribed to various online streaming services), shortwave, AND terrestrial AM and FM, including HD. Just as people didn't stop watching their local tv stations when they got cable or satellite, they don't stop listening to local radio when they get XM or Sirius. It doesn't work that way.

 

[tomservo]

It makes me so angry sometimes, the stupid things that radio industry spokespeople say.

Satellite radio, especially after a (theoretical) merger, is this BIIIIIG threat to terrestrial radio and their fledgling Hybrid-Digital system. But wait! A (theoretically) merged company only has a tiny tiny percentage of total listeners... Do huh now? How can they be a threat if only a few people tune in? ???

I said in another post a few minutes earlier that one thing that will really help HD radio is programming. Well, programming is what drove me to satellite radio. Like Mike, I'm also a longtime XM subscriber. They offered formats and programs that I wanted which local terrestrial radio in Birmingham (AL) just didn't offer. The shows I enjoy that aren't on XM? On my local stations. I still tuned in local talk stations and a distant public radio station for programming I couldn't get elsewhere. Combined or not, satellite will keep growing as long as the mega-companies keep cutting programming. People will always go back to local radio when there's a good reason...

Let me note that, now that I'm in Mississippi, I hardly ever turn to local radio. Why? It stinks, that's why. The music stations are satellite fed (so much for that oft-touted 'local content'!) and are the most poorly computer-run ordeals I've ever heard. I gave our oldies outlet a try. Good satellite format, not too many commercials, a great song comes on and then in the middle.... *silence* After a moment, I'm greeted with phone-line hum and the muffled sounds of a local basketball game play-by-play. Blech. They could've at least warned me first. :-[

Some nearby towns do have great local content, on AM... But most are too weak to be received here in my town. I'll usually check them out when travelling, though.

Some things in that article are kind of misleading. The sidebar notes that HD "has digital sound as good as satellite radio." What? Satellite DOES NOT SOUND GOOD! If I hadn't read otherwise on here and elsewhere, that alone would keep me from ever 'upgrading' to HD. I put up with the crappy sound quality because it's stuff I can't get elsewhere, or take with me across the entire continent (which I do from time to time). When I'm at home and want music, I'll listen to XM on DirecTV, where the channels actually sound good.

The author keeps referring to HD as 'high definition' which is an absolute insult. There is nothing high definition about 96 kbps, no matter how good Mike says it sounds.

The NAB and RIAA can heavy-hand satellite radio and internet streams, squeezing them to failure, but they ain't gonna stop the iPod. I hate the things, but they will be the ultimate radio killer, if it ever comes down to it.