Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

NY Post: XM, Sirius Merger Deal Near

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

February 19, 2007, 12:30 PM

Rumors of a marriage between satellite radio companies XM and Sirius again are at the forefront thanks to an article in the New York Post that claims the two sides are close to announcing a merger.

Both sides were meeting in Washington, DC to finalize an agreement, with an announcement coming as soon as Monday, the Post claims. Neither company could be immediately reached for comment.

Antitrust concerns way heavy on the negotiations, thus lawyers on both sides were working to address them in the final agreement. The companies were expected to take an equity stake in any combined entity.

The Post says that Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin would retain his position in the combined company, as would XM Chairman Gary Parsons. It appears that XM CEO Hugh Panero may not have a high-ranking position, as it was unknown if he would have a role.

As much as $7 billion could be saved annually with a combined company that would have approximately 12 million subscribers. The combination would also merge Sirius' premier content such as Howard Stern and Martha Stewart with XM's, which includes Major League Baseball and Oprah Winfrey.

Add a Comment (10 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.

By chgomccool

edited Feb 20, 2007 - 2:10 AM

"Antitrust concerns way heavy on the negotiations,"

it's WEIGH...not WAY

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 5:21 PM

Well, it looks like 'them pigs' are revving their engines...or wings...or arms..or...well, whatever it is that will enable their flying!

Score: 0

By TomeOne

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 4:36 PM

Pretty much a done deal:

http://xmradio.mediaroom..._releases&item=1423

Score: 0

By JSDvs9172

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 3:57 PM

Oh yeah, I can see THIS happening. And it will happen on the day that hell freezes and pigs take to the sky. :(

Seriously, would the FCC and the Fed permit this? I THINK NOT! I smell a MAJOR ANTITRUST BATTLE coming that will only serve to derail ANYTHING that attempts to eliminate competition. At that time, you can expect a telecommunications/broadcasting/etc. fight not seen since the breakup of Ma Bell... and then they will break up Ma Bell again because it now comprises equal parts of SBC, Bell South and the original Ma Bell.

THEN WE'LL SEE WHO HAS THE LAST LAUGH.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Feb 19, 2007 - 5:14 PM

You must be referring to the HUGE brouhaha over the merger of Southwestern Bell, renamed AT&T, and Bell South.

Yep, that certainly was a huge fight!

Not!!!

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 2:06 PM

While it might not be in the best interest of competition, potentially losing one of the two major players would not either.

While it is not necessary for service delivery, I wonder if they might gain additional penetration if they were to attempt to also partner with cable companies or satellite services like Dish and Direct who already have service penetration in homes with an FM feature that would add an additional offering to their bundle of services...

While it might be argued that they would cannibalize their own market, they might also increase their penetration among those who are not prepared to subscribe to yet another service and purchase another receiver.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Feb 19, 2007 - 2:04 PM

Well, like every merger I have ever witnessed during my lifetime, this one will end up hurting both companies more than it will help either one. However, the "prestige" class of employees at both places will end up making more profits, and hence in their eyes it will be a success. Problem is: lower level employees will suffer more, hence they will either lose some or purposely let them go. In the end, the companies will shrink, they will not make as much annually as they would have separately, and the consumers and low level employees will lose big time.

As long as the CEO's and the big-shots make more money, though, who cares about the rest? We can see the problem--I'm sure that some will even disagree with me here, but most people will admit that at least to a small degree, American business elites have become more greedy these past 20 years than the 20 years before.

Now the cause: sure, blame the evil CEO's, blame the economy, or blame Clinton or even "Bush and his cronies" (sigh), so easy to blame anyone except ourselves, so that's the first reaction. However, let's try to look objectively at the issue, and attempt to discover at least part of the real cause of why big businesses are caring less and less for their company and caring more and more about their own individual pockets.

Anybody have any intelligent answers to this?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Feb 19, 2007 - 2:12 PM

"In the end, the companies will shrink, they will not make as much annually as they would have separately, and the consumers and low level employees will lose big time."

Potentially, if they did nothing but maintain the exact same number of subscribers, with the savings due to the simple elimination of duplicate costs, their revenue would increase.
With no net change in any other aspect!

So I am not sure where the everyone loses stuff comes from.

The only loss would be in market competition, and competition is always a good thing.

But that becomes a moot point if one carrier folds!

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 2:26 PM

"Potentially, if they did nothing but maintain the exact same number of subscribers, with the savings due to the simple elimination of duplicate costs, their revenue would increase.
With no net change in any other aspect!"

Again it is only because instant increase in revenue--what will the CEO's and such spend that extra money on? Bettering the company in the long run, or upping their salaries first and then perhaps dancing the dance that is required for them to remain in their positions.

In theory, if the higher-ups are in the business for the business, this would benefit the company. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's not going to be the case. I could be wrong, and certainly hope I am as well.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 2:38 PM

What will the CEO's spend the money on?

I think that is up to the board and the stock holders discretion!

If they choose to blow it and ruin the company, that is their right, albeit a ridiculous one!

But I can't help but be fascinated with this idea that you seem to think the CEO operates in some vacuum without any form of governance and without being accountable to anyone. And to the best of my knowledge, this is not a privately held company!

If the CEO is allowed to simply do what they want, without being beholden to any accountability and governance, then that is an issue totally separate from the potential benefit or harm of a merger.

Score: 0

Nov 21 - 6:51 PM ET Coalition urges better laws for e-mail and cell phone privacy

Nov 21 - 6:42 PM ET How is Internet advertising faring in this bad economy?

Nov 21 - 6:15 PM ET From out of the Amazon Cloud, an AWS winner emerges

Nov 21 - 5:20 PM ET Mufin music finder enters public beta, adds widgets

Nov 21 - 5:01 PM ET Google launches its SearchWiki semantics plug-in

Nov 21 - 4:57 PM ET Asus previews a slimmer, less costly Eee PC

Nov 21 - 4:32 PM ET New Adobe Media Player ushers in AIR 1.5

Nov 21 - 2:11 PM ET AT&T to add Pantech's low-cost C630 phone to 3G lineup

Nov 21 - 1:11 PM ET iPhone gets firmware 2.2 update

Nov 21 - 11:51 AM ET The Dell surprise: Higher earnings on lower revenue