Slashdot Log In
XM And SIRIUS Radio Merging
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Feb 19, 2007 04:07 PM
from the monopoly-is-such-a-fun-game dept.
from the monopoly-is-such-a-fun-game dept.
lenny6998 writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that XM and Sirius Radio, the only two major players in the relatively new market of subscription satellite radio have announced a merger. "The two companies said in a statement that Mel Karmazin, the CEO of Sirius, would become chief executive of the new company while Gary Parsons, the chairman of XM, would remain in that role."
Related Stories
[+]
Entertainment: Sirius, XM Merger Gets FCC Approval 187 comments
Multiple readers, including koavf, have written to tell us the FCC has finally approved the Sirius-XM merger that has been in the works for quite a while now. CNN has picked up AP coverage as well. We discussed approval of the merger by the Justice Department a few months ago. From CNN:
"The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to approve the buyout, with the tiebreaker coming Friday night from Republican commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin confirmed the final vote Friday night. 'I think it's going to be, in the end, a good thing for consumers and be in the public interest,' he told The Associated Press."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Egos (Score:5, Insightful)
Can one satellite network handle two (well three) giant egos.
Let's find out.
Re:Egos (Score:4, Interesting)
On another note, how will this work hardware-wise? Can they in fact offer one united channel selection over any current hardware? Will they continue to offer two separate "branded" offerings that each go to the proprietary radios until new hardware can be rolled out?
Parent
Didn't the FCC already say no? (Score:4, Informative)
What does "no" really mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was wondering about that too. They either are so desperate for a merger that they'll take their chances with the FCC, or they've already talked with Martin and convinced him that it won't be anticompetitive.
Who knows, they may succeed in framing the competition issue as one applying to the streamed audio market, which encompasses radio, Internet radio, and sat radio. When discussing broadband, the FCC frequently defines the market rather broadly, incorporating dish access into the discussion, as if it is a serious market participant. Given their generally broad interpretation of communications markets, they (or at least Martin, Tate, and McDowell) may buy the argument.
Parent
Re:Didn't the FCC already say no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Look up... waaaaay up (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing will be decided probably until at least years end. Even if they get approval, it will take some time to also figure out the technical details as to who's equipment to go with, who gets laid off, etc. Actual savings probably won't be seen for several years, but if indeed they do merge, the cost of competition gets a lot cheaper in a hurry.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
They're about as equivalent as Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and Naproxen sodium. Yeah, they're technically all painkillers and reduce fever, but anyone who's ever had a headache or fever knows that they're definitely NOT all the same. Tylenol utterly sucks compared to the other two, but some people are forced to use it because they can't tolerate them. Ibuprofen rocks for headaches, but sucks for fevers (unless you enjoy having your fever come back every 4-6 hours). Naproxen sodium is a godsend for fevers (breaks once, stays that way), but a complete waste of time for headaches. The same is true of Sirius and XM. Both have slightly different audiences with different expectations -- all of whom are going to be FURIOUS if their network mutates into the other. Even slightly.
Talk to anyone who subscribes to either service. I guarantee that 99% of them will react to the news of a merger with absolute horror at the thought that ${their_network} will get turned into ${other_network}. I *guarantee* that if a merger happens and the music channels from one or the other get dropped to "streamline" and "eliminate redundancy", AT LEAST half of the losing service's carriers will leave in disgust. At the same time, the "winner" network will probably lose at least a quarter of its customers if it changes even slightly to be more like the loser's format was. Ultimately, we'll be stuck with one mediocre provider whose financial position is only slightly better than before, and now has hundreds of thousands of angry and pissed off former customers saying bad things about it and discouraging their friends from subscribing.
This is horrible news for the customers of BOTH services. I expect to see an outpouring of anger from customers of BOTH Sirius AND XM demanding that the FCC NOT allow a merged company to own both frequency bands in a desperate effort to derail the whole merger.
Parent
What changes? (Score:2)
One of the reasons I picked Sirius was the music selection on the channels appealed to me more then on XM. Am I going to loose out now?
This has been talked about before but I've never heard what will actually change for the end user.
Lets hope (Score:2)
More Bandwidth? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, as a Big XII Alumni (Baylor,) hopefully they'll give us an option to start listening to Sirius content on XM. Oh, and there is that little league called the NFL.
I'm also curious to see how Opie and Anthony live working umnder the same umbrella as Howard Stern. Time will tell.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
L'il Conner gave his mommy an XM for christmas, too bad it don't work under water.
standards? (Score:2)
There is such a thing as open standards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
business model? (Score:4, Interesting)
XM and Sirius have so far both struggled for customers for several reasons, not the least of which being problems of customer awareness. Many people simply don't know - and won't learn without extensive research - which network would be better for them (in terms of content, quality and price). People are used to having one radio "network", expecting competitors to just be different channels. The idea of two separate networks with non-interoperable hardware just isn't what people want.
The question is how this new hybrid company (I love the AT&T joke...) will shape its new business model: if no other satellite companies emerge, will they offer channels 'for rent' to other content providers? Will they continue to own all channels? Etc.
Yeah Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife used to love the 80s music channel they had under the old system. But now they replaced that with "Ethel" or "Fred" or somesuch, and it sucks ass. The selection isn't as good as it used to be. And invariably they wind up throwing in stuff that doesn't even fit. The "80s" channel they have now has a "wider" definition (ie. only what they consider to be 80s instead of what was REALLY definitive 80s) of 80s in that it doesn't just feature punk and new wave stuff like the old one. Now they throw in all sorts of things (some of which aren't even 80s) that are vaguely "alternative" with the occasional crap country song thrown in. My guess is that since country is such a popular format (even though it sucks ass in my opinion) they are hoping that by dropping in an occasional tune, they might get some new buyers from people on the fence.
Yet another annoying factor is that the old system used to tell you on screen what was currently playing and which album it was from. It was very informative. The new system just gives you a little info and 90% of the time it's completely wrong. If that's what XM is like, then they can shove it. I hope they die a spectacular death because music lovers don't want satellite or subscription radio. Music lovers want a smörgåsbord of endless new and old music that is either thrown in as a "freebie" or totally free. And if the selection is varied enough, THEN and ONLY THEN will the music lover plunk down the cash for the goods. That's the way I roll. I listen to college radio and the BBC via the net (and I'm approaching 40) because in many markets it's the only place to hear good new music. If it's good enough, I check and see if eMusic has it and download it. If not, then I get it from Amazon on CD. Satellite radio is only for boring old people who still think Cadillacs are cool looking cars or who think they're being radical when they buy a modern Volkswagen Beetle. LastFM is about the only other option, but I fear that it will be pounced on by the big players and hence ruined once they reach a certain critical mass.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, which is it? 80's (channel 8), which plays mostly Top 40 hits from that decade with some deep cuts tossed in, or Fred (channel 44), which is "classic alternative", which is going to play New Wave and some punk, mostly from the 80s, but sometimes possibly a bit earlier and possibly reaching into the early 90s, or Ethel, which is going to play newer v
A bit worried (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Guess it was just a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see if the non-commercial-running service stays that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day here in Canada, the first cable companies called their service "PayTV", no commercials.
It was advertised that commercials were necessary for each network to pay for their broadcasting charges in maintaining towers and whatnot.
But soon enough, they saw money.
And the same will happen to Satellite Radio.
Guess it was just a matter of time...and space (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, FM may have a large library, but what good is it if they have unimaginative program directors who maintain limited playlists?
When FM radio abandoned the wonderful idea of letting on-air deejays play whatever the hell they liked, they lost my interest.
I love my mp3 player, but no matter how big the storage, I know what I've got, even with thousands of songs and shuffle. The beauty of radio is that you can be surpris
Re:Guess it was just a matter of time... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its clear that XM and Sirius were in competition for a limited market. The iPod in the end was what brought these two together. XM and Sirius had a small window before cars started installing adapters for iPods. Since almost everyone who listens to music has a iPod, it meant that the benefits of satellite radio where lost when you cou
Re:Guess it was just a matter of time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? My life does not revolve around finding new music and programming it into my iPod. I listen to Sat Radio so I don't have to do that. Plus, I get comedy, talk, and a lot of other programming that have no or less ads.
Not all of us are tied to our iPods by our nose.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Guess it was just a matter of time... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the price of Sirius, I can buy a CD a month. In 4 months, I have a bigger variety then what they play anyhow.
If you only listen to one station, maybe. They have something like 75 music channels, though - why are you subscribing if you only like one of them?
I subscribe to Sirius because it takes the work out of finding new music. I can put on a station that I like, tag the songs I especially like, and then every so often, download a track or buy a CD from one of the artists I found.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oligopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oligopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Radio is a coercive monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
You linked the word "monopolies" to the Wikipedia article "Natural monopoly". I dispute that broadcasting has to be a natural monopoly. In fact, the structure of broadcast licensing in the United States ensures that music radio broadcasting is a coercive monopoly. This is due to the FCC's foot-dragging on low-power FM station licensing, bought and paid for in part by XM investor Clear Channel Communications and by National Public Radio.
Parent
Re:Radio is a coercive monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be fair. The reasons for those two organizations being against LPFM are very different. Clear Channel doesn't want competition. NPR realizes that the only place where first adjacents are likely to work reliably is in the lower power non-comm band, which means it will disproportionately hurt NPR and its member stations by causing harmful interference. You can't really fault them for that.
The real problem is that the FM band is way too narrow and FM stations use way too wide a band because pure frequency modulation of an analog signal is horribly inefficient. Digital radio hasn't taken off, despite having been proposed over ten years ago, largely due to the fact that there is no incentive for the big radio stations to encourage competition. Similarly, satellite radio hasn't taken off because the bit rate available results in suboptimal sound quality. It uses an omnidirectional antenna, which means that both Siruis and XM share a 50 MHz band, into which they've crammed three hundred digital radio stations.
Humorously, if that same chunk of spectrum were used for traditional FM, assuming you didn't allow second adjacents (and you really shouldn't allow them), you would only have fifty stations in that same chunk of spectrum. However, if you used an uncompressed 16-bit, 48kHz audio signal and modulated it with SSB, even if you couldn't do better than 1 bit per cycle, my quick back-of-a-napkin estimate is that you ought to be able to do it in a less than 120 kHz band (instead of 1 MHz for FM), or about 400 uncompressed channels in that same space---more channels than XM/Sirius, crammed into the same space, and without using lossy compression. So why the heck do we put up with the crap that Sirius/XM are giving us?
I think it boils down to this: people won't stop buying cars if their radio doesn't get any good stations. People will stop buying cell phones if they can't make calls. Therefore, the technology to cram lots of data into narrow bands makes into into cell phones, but not into your crappy car radio. If only the public would vote about radio quality with their dollars when purchasing cars.... Maybe then, we'd have some decent use of our broadcast spectrum. :-)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you limit yourself to 1 bit/second/Hz, then you get 120 kilobits/second in a 120 kHz channel.
You claim to somehow be able to fit 1.536 megabits/second (16 bits * 48 kHz * 2 channels for stereo) into 120 kHz and yet not exceed 1 bit/second/Hz??? What alternate reality are y
Oops, I completely forgot (Score:3, Informative)
The FM broadcast band I know has a 200 kHz channel spacing, admittedly with certain limitations on the geographic locations of transmitters on adjacent channels, but even if you left half of the allocated channels unused, that's a 400 kHz spacing, not 1 MHz.
Re:Oligopoly (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002. (Score:5, Interesting)
I drive close to 300 miles a week in the DFW area and local radio stations just don't have enough content to keep me intrested. Except for a few talk shows that I listen to, I need a sat radio to keep sane.
Yes, I do have an ipod loaded to the gills with music, but to be frank, without Satellite, I wouldn't have any NEW content to keep me awake.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Even a 30 gig MP3 collection can sometimes get boring if there is never anything new added.
How to find new stuff to add? Good question, and in my case, XM is the answer. Usually every time I drive somewhere in my car, by the time I'm home there's something new I want to get.
Which reminds me, I need to hunt a track down.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quote of the day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002. (Score:4, Insightful)
In terms of music-only listening I think you make a great point, but satellite offers much more than just music.
Parent
Re:Satellite Radio is sooooo 2002. (Score:4, Insightful)
Things don't die out as much as they thin out because of increased choices.
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Art will introduce us to the shadow people, then Stern will ask them to show us their boobs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I have little patience for advertisements. I would rather pay for XM / Sirius then listen to that crap. Not to mention, look at how many more channels you get.
I am gonna take a guess that you either have no or only basic cable. I personally have full cable with 3 premium channels. (too expens
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate those stupid ads - are they a Clearchannel specialty? - about not paying for something you can get for free. Well, where I live, I have the choice of Clearchannel Pop, CC Rock, CC Country 1-5, and CC "greatest hits of 80s, 90s, and now". So, I opted for Sirius to hear the great stuff I can't hear over the airwaves here.
I'm too cheap to ever pay for anything I could get for free. I don't drink bottled water, but I do pay for satellite radio.