XM/Sirius Merger Draws More Controversy
By Amy Gilroy -- TWICE, 4/4/2007
New York — Several groups have stepped forward recently to state opposition to the proposed XM and Sirius satellite radio merger, but XM and Sirius claim that the opposing groups are linked to terrestrial radio interests, rather than the general public.
On March 29, the Alabama House of Representatives passed a resolution opposing an XM/Sirius merger and today, a report by research firm The Carmel Group was released in opposition to the merger.
The Carmel Group is credited with presenting research that played a role in regulators’ rejection of a merger between EchoStar and DirecTV in 2002.
In today’s report on satellite radio The Carmel Group claimed, “If this merger were approved, every subscriber would be beholden to a single satellite radio monopoly, resulting in less service, less affordability, less diversity and less choice in content and hardware.”
XM said The Carmel Report was paid for by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and the Alabama resolution was sponsored by a legislator who owns a terrestrial radio station.
In a joint statement, XM and Sirius said, “For over 25 years, the NAB has objected to the evolution of communications technology, including satellite television, ‘drop in’ radio stations, low-power radio and low-power TV band devices. In addition to their opposition to satellite radio. NAB opposed the creation of satellite radio fearing that it would compete with terrestrial radio, so it’s no surprise that it's producing biased ‘studies’ hostile to the Sirius/XM merger by NAB-paid consultants.”
The Carmel Group senior analyst Jimmy Schaeffler said that the Group had originally opposed the XM/Sirius merger before the NAB asked it to publish a white paper to that effect.
A third group, called the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio, filed a study with the Federal Communications Commission finding that an XM/Sirius merger would be anticompetitive, but is also reported to have ties with broadcasters.
-
As a Sirius listener I am deeply angered by the political influence the NAB has exerted over this process. Clear Channel and other MONOPOLIES like it have destroyed the landscape of terrestrial radio. I live in a very rural area with few radio options especially at 3:00 am when I am at work. I love NPR and when I found several channels of public radio on Sirius I was sold. I have not listened to terrestrial radio, except for a few grueling minutes from time ti time in friends cars who are not on the bandwagon yet and it just serves to remind me how happy I am to have Sirius. Let the consumers decide!!! If they don't like satelite they can listen to terrestrial radio, MP3's, Web based, services, or what ever the next hot trend is, etc... The reason the NAB is opposed to this and why they are so involved in this process is not out of the goodness of their hearts. Its because they see the competitive value of a combined XM_Sirius to their customers. The NAB represents businesses that make their money from advertising dollars generated by terrestrial radio. They are influencing the government do the work of limiting their competition rather than promoting it. The XM Sirius merger is a good thing!!! The competition is out there and I am happy that the NAB is afraid. Maybe it will lead to better radio overall... Oh, that would be the result of their competition with other services they are trying to eliminate after all!!! Please let this merger happen. If it is a bad thing then a newer and better option will come about. Right now the last thing after Sirius, MP3, Computer internet radio and prerecorded music I will listen to is old fashioned terrestrial radio.
Reed H. Palo - 2007-14-5 12:56:00 EDT -
I DO NOT FEEL THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REGULATING NONESSENTIAL SERVICES.
SATELITE RADIO IS NOT LIKE GASOLINE OR HOSPITAL CARE.
NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE SACRIFICE, IF SAT RADIO IS NOT AN ATTRACTIVE DEAL, SOMEHOW CONSUMERS WILL FIND A WAY TO DO WITHOUT IT.
IT IS ABOUT TIME THE POLITICIANS PAID ATTENTION TO MORE IMPORTANT THINGS.
JOSEPH EBERSON - 2007-5-4 08:40:00 EDT -
FROM ORBITCAST.COM:
In the recent Carmel Group study, Senior Analyst and Chairman Jimmy Schaeffler writes an analysis about the proposed XM-Sirius merger, and drafts point-by-point blows combating each argument in favor of the merger.
One key aspect that Schaeffler argues against is the definition of the competitive landscape. Here''''''''s a quote from the Carmel Group report:
"Sirius and XM make an argument that is critical to the success of this proposed merger. They state that their competitive landscape presently includes all forms of terrestrial radio (i.e., analog AM and FM, digital HD and Internet radio), as well as digital services such as MP3 devices and music-to-cellular telephones. This position is ludicrous. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth."
Note that I added the emphasis on the "ludicrous" statement. That''''''''s something that the media is picking up on very heavily.
But exactly how ludicrous is this position? Exactly how far from the truth could it be? Not too far I guess, because Jimmy Schaeffler took that position himself in a Carmel Group article written in October 05, 2005:
"...satellite radio, with more than seven mil. subscribers, and its competition comes in the form of traditional analog AM & FM radio, as well as burgeoning services like MP3 players, terrestrial radio, and video- and Internet-to-the-vehicle. "
Now that''''''''s not a selectively snipped quote. Read the full article yourself - it goes on to outline and describe satellite radio''''''''s competition, and what obstacles they will face in the years to come.
This is an article that was written (free of any funding from the NAB) only a year and a half ago by The Carmel Group, and it explicitly defines satellite radio''''''''s competitors. But yet an NAB commissioned report by the same group suddenly claims that any such definition is "ludicrous."
Coincidence?
Frank - 2007-4-4 12:29:00 EDT -
Ridicules!! I am not for or against the merger. Just make a decision for the right reasons. I have not listen to one minute of terrestrial radio in the 2 years I have owned my sirius Radio. To say they don't compete with each other is a load of crap! As a matter of Fact I would never listen to terrestrial radio again as long as these big bureaucratic radio companies like clear channel and citadel and via com own them. I boycott all radio stations owned by these companies.
Mark Savides - 2007-4-4 11:08:00 EDT
No related content found.
VIEW ALL GALLERIES