It would be a monopoly in my opinion, until internet radio could replace some of the services like live sports, news, etc. Ipods are great but CNN comes in two ways to your car: XM or Sirius. Don't tell me they should merge that.

you could also be a monopoly just by dominating the market, regardless of a legion of competition and "supposed" better alternatives...wink wink (no I don't believe this model of monopoly...but using example to show how one can be called a monopoly even with competition - GO MS and Windows!!!!).

hehe

""This study confirms, empirically, what we have been stressing since before this merger was even announced: subscribers do not view their satellite radio service as a substitute for other forms of entertainment, and a merged provider would be able and motivated to raise prices and cut back the programming that so many listeners value and depend on," said Chris Reale, a founder of C3SR"

Let's follow this...

So the market is not robust enough to support 2 major players.

So, if they merge, they will raise prices and cut back services in a weak market.

And naturally this will stimulate even more subscribers to sign up and...oh wait...which will then motivate even more subscribers to jump ship. This is so confusing! Not!

If the market can't support 2 players at the prices and service level they currently offer, why would the existing customers. let alone new customers, be motivated to support a player with higher prices and less services?

That might be valid if they were the ONLY entertainment option, but the fact is they are not! There is still off-air radio, CDs and any number of alternatives!

And the market has proven that these alternatives to satellite radio are compelling enough to render a 2 player market substantially weak.

So, in a weak market, the way to succeed is to raise prices and lower service delivered. That will bring in new customers and maintain subscriber levels!

If the resulting service wants to raise prices and lower offerings, let them. And they can wave goodbye to the remaining customers and they can wonder why new market growth remains negative.

A GW law student huh?
Maybe he should take a few business courses!

I think it is not so much as SIRIUS and XM are competing against each other as they are all fighting for a slice of the media pie. It is not a stretch to say satellite radio is competing with iPods, streaming internet radio, and other forms of digital media. I understand the phsyical differences, but idealogically, it is the same. So I don't see this merger as a monopoly...just another option for digital media.

So what does this "group" propose to do if either XM or Sirius goes out of business, leaving only one of them? Isn't that basically the same result as a merger?

(In fact, it would be worse for the consumer because the remaining company would have no obligation to support the other guy's devices.)

Do they think the government should *require* them both to stay in business????

Don't confuse them with the facts!
Of course competition is beneficial!

But it is like these same folks have not bothered to check with reality and have just woken up with their idealistic rant detached from reality.

The proposed merger is NOT because you have two healthy companies who simply want to control the market, it is because one of them is about to go belly up - thus leaving only one player - and that by definition is a monopoly.

The next proposal will be government subsidies to insure that a 'free' market remains intact. And the irony is that this will make sense to the left.

Its the same rant by a bunch of folks with their heads up the @ss.

Umm...ok...let's see...

I make a product which does not generate a customer base large enough to offset my production costs and therefore I am losing money faster than it is coming in, which puts me in a very bad situation, business wise.

YOU make a product which does not generate a customer base large enough to offset your production costs and therefore you are losing money faster than it is coming in, which puts you in a very bad situation, business wise.

So what to do ??

I've got it ! Why not merge my company with your company ? Then we can join forces to offset our production costs and lower our overhead while continuing to offer the very same product to a customer base which has proven its negative growth over the past three years.

We'll reduce customer options, thereby cutting our costs, while continuing to charge the same fee as before; however we will cleverly market this new arrangement in such a manner that we will make the public think they're getting a bargain.

How's that for a successful business model ?

Good point. Whatever happened to letting the market decide which one is better? If neither can survive, then tough. I'm sure guys like Stern, Bubba, et al. would be glad to renegotiate their contracts in order to save their jobs. It's the greatest radio gig ever for them. Remember when it started out as commercial-free? Yea, that lasted all of five seconds.

First of all Jim Cramer has been saying XM and Sirius should merge for a while now. He even had Mel Karmazin on his show and told him to do it on the air.

If they merge and prices go up people will leave as others have said. I think what would be a good merger would be XM and Sirius then DirectTV or Time Warner Cable should buy the company in a year or two. This way they can sell the service as part of a bundle then they would raise the subscriber base ten fold.

If these guys want to make a case, take up the ownership rules and payola scandals.

Good, prevent the merger so we can lose both groups. Hows THAT for consumer choice? *sigh* History keeps repeating itself, yet nobody learns from it...

The government does not care about the consumers, they only care about the persons/companies that are lining their pockets.....

If Sirius/XM had a lobbying group like FM (NAB) lining the pockets of the elected officials then the merger would go very smooth for them.

Laughable. In no way shape or form is it a monopoly.

Ridiculous.

I wonder if XM wants to merge because there satellites are about to fail in the next few years.

LOL Joe Dirt wouldn't like Sat Radio.

Satellite Radio sucks.

That's a religious statement - WHY do you think it sucks?

--->Satellite Radio sucks.

FM and all of their crappy commercials sucks.

Long live Satellite radio with their commercial free music.

Because I'm Joe Dirt. I drive a Hemi and I don't need a radio at all. I listen to 8-tracks in the dash baby.

So is OTA television a competitor to DirecTV? I think so. How is this different?

Yes and No.

Yes, OTA can be a competitor for DirecTV. OTA HD picture quality is better than DirecTV's and is free.

No, Some rural areas may not be able to receive OTA television.

It is different because with music you have many more choices you have Free FM/AM, CD's, IPod's/MP3 players, etc.... Satellite radio has lots of competition, if they merged and increased my subscription costs and I don't want to pay, then I cancel and start listening to commercial free CD's or MP3's. I will not listen to commercial ridden Free FM. FM plays more commercials than music.

It will not create a monopoly because they still have to compete with free radio. If they increase their prices then they would loose customers left and right going back to free radio and other alternatives. Get real.

This would be an effective monopoly due to the capital cost of starting a competing network (launching multi-million dollar satellites) we will not see a competitor enter this market unless they have a great deal of money to throw at it. We would see the rates increase and/or the advertisements increase after the merger. There are huge differences in the quality and selection between satellite and terrestrial radio. Terrestrial radio has only a small limiting effect on the pricing for Satellite radio. The fact that there are 2 competing services that have similar overhead is what accounts for the current pricing.

There's two reasons you wont see any competitor enter the satellite radio business. And neither of them have anything to do with a monopoly or startup money.

1. The government has only granted TWO licenses for sattelite radio.

2. There's barely enough market for the product to support two competing companies, much less 3.

But still it goes back to the consumer, no one is forced to buy sirius or xm to listen to music. If the consumer doesn't like what the merged company charges they'll drop it for radio or an mp3 player. Who's going to pay for an overpriced service that's has no value, xm and sirius know this and don't want to lose their customer base.

http://www.corporatecrim...illiamsmullen022807.htm

The group is supported by the NAB. You do the math.

This will not be a monopoly because not only are they competing with FM/AM radio, they are also competing with other Satellite radio companies such as Slacker.com.

While the merger would make them the largest satellite radio provider, in no way is it a monopoly.

Yes, it does go back to the consumer. We vote with both our pocketbooks and our on/off switches, and personally speaking I have been voting 99% of radio (both satellite and terrestrial) with the on/off switch.

Now, I do listen to a lot of music. Some of it comes from cd's and mp3's, but I also listen to a lot of streaming media from outside of the US. Stations such as Klassik Radio (www.klassikradio.de), the BBC, the CBC and others are heavily bookmarked and tuned to on a regular basis. I also do a lot of shortwave listening, something that is very rare in today's listening society. But the point is that domestic stations do not play what interests *me* and that includes the satellite offerings. (And yes, I know that there are some offerings on satellite from foreign sources.)

But I am the exception, not the rule. The majority of listeners could care less if there's one service or two, as long as their programming remains. And the largest reason for subscriptions are sports-oriented programming such as Major League Baseball and NASCAR. And that will be the driving force that may determine if a merger goes through, not competition.