Thousands Comment To FCC On Sirius/XM Merger
By Amy Gilroy -- TWICE, 7/10/2007
Washington — The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and proponents of the Sirius/XM merger filed comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) yesterday, as the deadline for public comments on the merger expired.
The NAB called on the FCC today to deny the merger or designate a hearing to determine whether a merger would serve the public interest. At the same time, XM and Sirius issued a statement claiming that the volume of support from organizations and citizens shows that the merger is in the public’s interest and should be approved.
Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin stated, “The thousands of pro-merger comments from organizations representing diverse populations and interests, individuals, businesses and experts plainly demonstrate that the combination of Sirius and XM is in the public interest.”
Since the FCC opened its docket on the merger, more than 3,500 individuals as well as 20 organizations and businesses, including Circuit City and the NAACP, have filed in support of the merger, said Sirius and XM.
In its FCC filing dated June 28, Circuit City chairman, president/CEO Philip Schoonover said the chain supported the merger because XM and Sirius “have committed to roll out a variety of new products and services post-merger,” among other reasons.
The NAB reiterated that a Sirius/XM merger would create a monopoly and accused the satellite radio companies of “not coming close” to demonstrating that there are “extraordinarily large, cognizable and non-speculative efficiencies that justify the creation of a monopoly.”
Also today, Public Knowledge, a Washington-based public-interest advocacy group, said it suggested the FCC approve a merger only if the deal passes antitrust scrutiny and only if the Commission imposes conditions such as the following:
· the new company makes 5 percent of its capacity available to non-commercial educational and informational programming over which it has no editorial control;
· the new company does not raise prices for three years after the merger is approved; and
· the new company supplies consumers with pricing choices such as a la carte or tiered programming.
Public Knowledge said in its filing, “Absent a merger, the two companies would likely avoid investing in programming that meets the needs of underserved communities. In contrast, a merged company could provide more diverse programming at better prices.”
Four other organizations issued a joint petition to the FCC today against the merger including Consumers Union, Free Press, Consumer Federation of America and Common Cause.
The organizations argued against taking the broader view of the competitive marketplace, asserted by Sirius and XM, that the two services compete with other technologies such as terrestrial and HD Radio so a merger would not constitute a monopoly.
-
The NAB is attempting to prop up a failing technology by not supporting the XM/Sirius merger. Even after the companies are combined, their market share will represent less than 6% of the total radio broadcasting volume in the U.S. Anti-competitive? Only if you think that a 6% market share is overwhelming. What's worse is the chance that satellite radio will fail if the two companies don't merge. Neither company generates sufficient cash flow to sustain operations. The hope is that a combined company will be able to support itself, instead of cannabilize its competitor.
Bill Penn - 2007-11-7 10:08:00 EDT -
The arguments presented by opponents of the merger are less than stellar and do not support their position that satellite radio creates a monopoly.
A better litmus test in this matter is this: satellite radio, nice to have or need to have? People make a choice to subscribe to it thereby making it a nice to have. It''s not like cable television or satellite television where in most cases its a need to have.
I as a consumer have the right to choose whether to listen to subscription radio, free radio, an mp3 player, or music on CD. Satellite radio has competition which does not make it a monopoly. This all comes down to terrestial radio and the NAB being forced to improve their product while facing major competition from a better "service."
The Consumer groups seem to be afraid of satellite radio becoming expensive and not serving their customers. Based on satellite radios business model, if they make pricing too high or don''t offer a good product, they won''t have customers. I for one will cancel when I don''t think I''m getting value for my money.
And I''m really disappointed in the stance Consumers Union has taken in this matter.
Alan Albert - 2007-11-7 09:35:00 EDT -
Seeing how teh NAB is so opposed to XM/Sirius merger, it proves sattelite competes with all them thousands of radio stations. How is that a monopoly? The NAB is the lobby group for the MONOPLOY of teh obsolete FM/AM radio. Just think of the enviormental IMPROVEMNT when FM/AM ground transmitters are removed, those big ugly towers replaced by the unseen SATTELITES!!! 21st century let's move on, Even Marconi would approve! How does 20 minutes of inane COMMERICALS on the failed FREE FM serve the public interests? How does the NAB, when it wards such radio luminarys as Imus and Rush Limbaugh? That's the NAB that is afraid of satelite. What is teh NAB afraid of? Losing THEIR monoply?
Carl E. - 2007-11-7 04:19:00 EDT
No related content found.
VIEW ALL GALLERIES