Login:
Password:

Former FCC Chair Supports Satellite Radio Merger

By BetaNews Staff, BetaNews

November 13, 2007, 2:19 PM

XM and Sirius trotted out former FCC chairman Reed Hundt to drum up support for the proposed merger of the two services. Hundt served as chair from 1993 to 1997, and played a large part in formulating the licensing agreement and getting it approved. Hundt called the merger "pro-competitive" and said that the market had changed since the ground rules for the licenses had been laid down. Most notably, he said that apart, the companies were unable to mount serious competition to terrestrial radio as was initially feared.

The reasoning for the initial two licenses was that the business model was not clear at the time. "It was never the case that these service rules were intended to be written [in] concrete or, like the Constitution of the United States, changed only through an elaborate process," he said. Instead, Hundt said that the rules were intended to get the industry off to a good start, and make it competitive to traditional radio, which it so far has not successfully done.

Add a Comment (15 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ctk

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 8:34 PM

one other thing to think about for those who are against this merger. how many people on this forum and in the country do you think would have already been in the market had not there have been two satelite companies? i know that i would definitely have bought a satelite radio, but the content i wanted was exclusive to one company, and i have multiple intrests.
i nearly went sirius when my college team started broadcasting on satelite and the nhl was on sirius. then the nhl announced it was going xm the next year. as soon as this deal is announced, i'm getting a satelite radio.
and also for your consideration, i also am an owner of an hd radio for 6 months and i love it as well.

Score: 0

By wjrandon

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 7:46 PM

If the merger is successful I seriously doubt it'll benefit the end user. If anything it'll create a situation where future competition in the satellite radio market will be nearly impossible due to the monopoly the merger created in the first place. Imagine if Blockbuster brought out Netflix instead of creating their own online rental service -- look at what has happened in the last five years to this market. Prices came down while service and incentives to the end user came up. This merger will essentially kill satellite radio in North America giving new technologies such as the free terrestrial HD Radio a competitive edge.

Score: 0

By Tristan28

edited Nov 14, 2007 - 5:38 AM

wjrandon wrote:
This merger will essentially kill satellite radio in North America giving new technologies such as the free terrestrial HD Radio a competitive edge.

If this were true the National Association of Broadcasters would be backing this merger. If the NAB believed that the merger would result in higher subscription rates and less innovative technology for the subscribers they would be all for this merger.

Score: 0

By wjrandon

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 1:01 PM

You're assuming the NAB only has its sights set on profits.

Score: 0

By Tristan28

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 5:49 PM

Are you implying that the National Association of Broadcasters is looking out for satellite radio subscribers and just wants to make sure they don't have to pay high subscription prices? Please, don't make me laugh so hard, that hurts. The only thing the NAB is concerned about is losing a chunk of their 20 billion dollar a year advertising revenue. To assume anything else is just ignorant.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 7:20 PM

Satellite radio will never be able compete with terrestrial radio until it becomes free like its competition, and that probably won't happen (if ever) for a while yet.

Musical wallpaper, however targeted and pigeonholed, isn't the same as listening to a human being who has something interesting to say.

Score: 0

By Tristan28

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 5:56 AM

imafurby wrote:
Satellite radio will never be able compete with terrestrial radio until it becomes free like its competition...

Is this your best effort for an oxymoronic verse?

“In 2006, we have satellite and internet radio [as competitors]. And barely a day passes without the introduction of a new competing device or service. But we have news for our competitors: ‘We will beat you – as we have beaten those change agents in the past.’ ”
NAB President and CEO David Rehr

Score: 0

By kholdstare

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 7:06 PM

For the people who think this would be a bad move think of this:

Satellite radio is still young and XM and sirius are not really health,y so even if they don't merge eventually one of them will go down probably due to bankruptcy and then there will be your no competition. this supposed A le' Carte system they are planning after the merger looks interesting too

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 4:44 PM

Good! Finally something that can compete with terrestrial radio! For you tools that are talking about this being uncompetitive, you could not be more wrong. This is about creating a viable alternative to that top-40 crap on FM. The worst thing that could happen is that these two ventures are prevented from merging, and radio loses an entire form of competition. This is one step in the right direction, and although it's ironic it'll happen through a merger, it's the right thing to do.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 4:41 PM

Why are these two companies so intent on merging? Sounds to me like they're trying to eliminate competition so they can start charging whatever they want and not have to worry about another company under cutting them.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 4:47 PM

They have competition, Beavis. Turn on your radio. That's competition. Turn on your Cable TV's music channels. That's competition, too.

This is one of the last, best hopes for preventing a full conglomerated media. It's hard to believe that it comes to this, but this has to be the last stand. No more FM multi-city mergers. No more reduced competition. Make radio stations on the ground fight to keep listeners! This has to be good, unless you are a Clear Channel lackie...

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 9:44 PM

Nice try with the insult, idiot. To say that satellite radio will be competing with cable TV's music channels, that's just flat out moronic. Same thing with FM radio. FM radio is free, satellite radio is not. You don't like top 40 hits, that's fine. Neither do I, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to PAY for satellite radio. Sorry to burst your bubble. Monopolies seem to be the economic trend in America and Americans are so damn blind and stupid, they actually get offended when others point out that monopolies aren't a good thing.

Score: 0

By Tristan28

edited Nov 14, 2007 - 5:30 AM

kashin wrote:
You don't like top 40 hits, that's fine. Neither do I, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to PAY for satellite radio. Sorry to burst your bubble.

In one breath you say satellite radio does not compete with terrestrial radio and then in the next you state that you are not willing to pay for satellite radio. In your case, it is apparent that satellite radio has lost a subscriber to another form of audio entertainment, probably their biggest competitor, terrestrial radio. If your statement was true that would mean that you have no other means to receive audio entertainment. Would you pay for satellite radio if it were one dollar per month? What about $6.99 for any fifty channels? You can not state that the merger of Sirius and XM would create a monopoly and then tell us that you refuse to pay for satellite radio and that you listen to terrestrial radio or some other form of audio entertainment. I hope you can now see that your logic is seriously flawed.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

edited Nov 13, 2007 - 4:15 PM

american monopolization and influence hard at work again...

the question is why would anyone give a d**m what a "former" FCC king has to say or can do to influence a democratic agency.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 4:49 PM

Because it was under his leadership that they decided that two companies had to form. Now he's providing the context by which they made that stipulation, and how they were being careful at the time. Turns out their fears were realized, and it's time to make it right.

Score: 0