# XM / Sirius merger approved by FCC Chairman- With conditions.



## Richard King

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOz1FYWduExBs1ZzZ6SfJvkPX1DAD91AUU5O0


> The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is recommending approval of the $5 billion merger between the nation's two satellite radio broadcasters in exchange for concessions that include turning over 24 channels to noncommercial and minority programming, The Associated Press has learned.


More.


----------



## Lee L

Well, if it has to go through, it is good that they are not being made to give back half the capacity, but I still think the merger is a bad idea.

I would not hold my breath for the open radio standard. I am sure they will put the same crack team that was working on the interoperable radios on it. Funny how they are saying in response to criticism on the lack of interaparable radios, that they did develop them, but never made them because without a subsidy, they would be too expensive. Now, they say as part of this deal that they will have them out within a year. Unless that year turns to 3 months, I call BS on that as if the design was all done, it should not take a year to come out with one.


----------



## mhayes70

That is good news. I am glad they finally made a decision.


----------



## miksmi21

mhayes70 said:


> That is good news. I am glad they finally made a decision.


Right....for or against the merger, it took well long enough. Most hollywood marriages don't last as long as it's taken to approve or disapprove this merger.

On the benefit side....perhaps now I can get NHL and NFL on the same radio without having to flip around wires in my car. Joy!! Though at the expense of buying a new radio.....no Joy.


----------



## James Long

mhayes70 said:


> That is good news. I am glad they finally made a decision.


Recommending the approval is a good step ... not quite a done deal and if Sirius/XM doesn't like the conditions it isn't a deal at all. 

But it is progress - moving in the right direction.


----------



## Steve Mehs

A sad day for satellite radio indeed. Now I don't only have to worry about loss of channels due to combing similar channels, but now I lose 24 channels right off the top dedicated to pure garbage. Public interest has ruined TV and now it will satellite radio. I swear if I lose a single one of my favorite stations on either service due to minority crap, all five of my subscriptions across both services will be canceled immediately.


----------



## tcusta00

I think it's a great thing! Nice call, FCC!


----------



## tpm1999

I too was at first afraid of that "24" must be public stations. Then I realized that Sirius already has many pinko... I mean public stations such as NPR, Pri, BBC, etc.


----------



## tcusta00

Steve Mehs said:


> I swear if I lose a single one of my favorite stations on either service due to minority crap, all five of my subscriptions across both services will be canceled immediately.


Ruht roh, good thing they're merging then, because either company on their own may not be able to sustain that financial hit all by itself. :lol:


----------



## Koz

Steve Mehs said:


> A sad day for satellite radio indeed. Now I don't only have to worry about loss of channels due to combing similar channels, but now I lose 24 channels right off the top dedicated to pure garbage. Public interest has ruined TV and now it will satellite radio. I swear if I lose a single one of my favorite stations on either service due to minority crap, all five of my subscriptions across both services will be canceled immediately.


Just a thought, but don't they have 24+ redundant channels right now? e.g. ESPN Radio, CNN, etc. So they should just be able to remove the redundancy and give the bandwidth to public interestest without affecting any unique channels.

Of course, they may also determine that some music channels of the same genre are redundant, whereas you (or others) find them unique.


----------



## James Long

It still is a "tax" on their bandwidth ... forcing them to do something they didn't want to do. Perhaps a tax they are willing to pay, perhaps not.


----------



## eudoxia

I think the end result would have been 1 satellite radio company no matter what the outcome. If K-mart kept burying it in the sand, one of the companies (most likely XM) couldn't make it. Now that its approved there will be 1 satellite radio company that may have a chance to make it. I think its great news and totally absurd how long this has taken.


----------



## cforrest

If all the commissioners approve the merger it would be great, but Martin is going to have to push hard to get this through. I wouldn't be surprised to see other commissioners wanting more concessions from the companies before they approve the merger. So while Martin is for it, without the others on board this could go on for another few months.


----------



## marksrader

This is a bad idea. It eliminates any competition, screws up free market and forces XM customers to bail Sirius out of the stupid Howard Stern deal.


----------



## eudoxia

marksrader said:


> This is a bad idea. It eliminates any competition, screws up free market and forces XM customers to bail Sirius out of the stupid Howard Stern deal.


Howard Stern made Sirius radio as big as it is, now Martha Stewart that was a mistake. As far as free marketplace, depends on how you define it. Sirius/XM argue they have to compete against all forms of new media (IPod, Wireless, etc.).

This deal is so tiny compared to the mammoth monopolistic deals that were approved in no time. Take a look at the Exxon Mobil deal or the Whirlpool-Maytag which breezed thru approval. Most of the opposition to this deal has come from the NAB and officials they have paid off. Haven't heard many consumers because its such a small marketshare and many things like "ala carte" programming has been promised which is a good thing.


----------



## archer75

marksrader said:


> This is a bad idea. It eliminates any competition, screws up free market and forces XM customers to bail Sirius out of the stupid Howard Stern deal.


Isn't it sirius bailing out XM? Sirius subscriber count has gone through the roof. XM hasen't done much. Sure they grew popular fast but their numbers have stagnated. The "stupid" howard stern deal has brought in millions upon millions of new subscribers and put Sirius in a position to buyout XM.
And having owned both i'd take sirius over XM any day.

What this deal means is you get the best of both worlds, lower base pricing as well as some a la carte.

You may want them to stay seperate so you have competition, but all that would do in this case is drive both companies out of business. A pay for radio has a hard time competing against free radio and people just plugging thier ipods into their vehicles.


----------



## tcusta00

archer75 said:


> Isn't it sirius bailing out XM? Sirius subscriber count has gone through the roof. XM hasen't done much. Sure they grew popular fast but their numbers have stagnated. The "stupid" howard stern deal has brought in millions upon millions of new subscribers and put Sirius in a position to buyout XM.
> And having owned both i'd take sirius over XM any day.
> 
> What this deal means is you get the best of both worlds, lower base pricing as well as some a la carte.
> 
> You may want them to stay seperate so you have competition, but all that would do in this case is drive both companies out of business. A pay for radio has a hard time competing against free radio and people just plugging thier ipods into their vehicles.


You must be confused - Sirius has 5 year average earnings growth at 4%, XM at 16%. No one is bailing anyone out, it was a necessary move for both companies.


----------



## Drew2k

Hmmmph. I am shopping for a new car (Honda, for November) and was hoping this would have been settled long before this so I could get a combo Sirius/XM radio in the car. Looks like it will be XM only though ...


----------



## Lee L

That is the worst part of all this. Any development of aftermarket solutions for cars has been dead since this was announced. I had and XM setup in my MINI that allowed full integration. Newer MINIs and BMWS do not have this since Blitzsafe has not developed it.


----------



## Paul Secic

mhayes70 said:


> That is good news. I am glad they finally made a decision.


Not yet.


----------



## Paul Secic

eudoxia said:


> Howard Stern made Sirius radio as big as it is, now Martha Stewart that was a mistake. As far as free marketplace, depends on how you define it. Sirius/XM argue they have to compete against all forms of new media (IPod, Wireless, etc.).
> 
> This deal is so tiny compared to the mammoth monopolistic deals that were approved in no time. Take a look at the Exxon Mobil deal or the Whirlpool-Maytag which breezed thru approval. Most of the opposition to this deal has come from the NAB and officials they have paid off. Haven't heard many consumers because its such a small marketshare and many things like "ala carte" programming has been promised which is a good thing.


I have to agree with you that the FTC & FCC took way too much time twiddling their thumbs!


----------



## bones boy

The headline to this post is misleading. Nothing has been approved yet. The chairman has recommended approval of the deal. It still needs to be voted on by members of the FCC.


----------



## JJJBBB

Howard will be very happy, so I will be very happy. Tuesdays show should be excellent for all. . 

Little Folks Rule !


----------



## Christopher Gould

Lee L said:


> Well, if it has to go through, it is good that they are not being made to give back half the capacity, but I still think the merger is a bad idea.
> 
> I would not hold my breath for the open radio standard. I am sure they will put the same crack team that was working on the interoperable radios on it. Funny how they are saying in response to criticism on the lack of interaparable radios, that they did develop them, but never made them because without a subsidy, they would be too expensive. Now, they say as part of this deal that they will have them out within a year. Unless that year turns to 3 months, I call BS on that as if the design was all done, it should not take a year to come out with one.


i don't think they have any problems getting a dual radios. i think they already have them. they were dragging there feet before, because as seperate companies they wouldn't want u jumping ship to the other so easy. plus i thought i heard that the rules the open standard had to be devloped, but did not say it had to be marketed.


----------



## ehilbert1

marksrader said:


> This is a bad idea. It eliminates any competition, screws up free market and forces XM customers to bail Sirius out of the stupid Howard Stern deal.


The Howard deal put Sirius on the map. It brought in millions of subscribers. You want to talk about stupid deals? XM bit the big one on the Oprah deal. They pay her what $50 to $60 million for her to be on a half hour a week. She brought in no subscribers. That was a stupid deal that Sirius has to bail XM out of. Atleast Howard brought in subscibers and the subscribers he brought in has already paid for his deal.


----------



## CopyCat

The big shame in all this is that they (FCC) can let anyone receive remote stations on satellite radio, but thanks to those in Congress not understanding the bill they passed and listening to the hired lobby for local TV stations we can not receive remote (distant) TV networks via satellite.

Shame on those sheep following the party line. 

Next election day for vote for someone that can read and comprehend what they are voting for if you can find someone that is not looking to fill the pork barrel at home.

:nono2:


----------



## Steve Mehs

Koz said:


> Just a thought, but don't they have 24+ redundant channels right now? e.g. ESPN Radio, CNN, etc. So they should just be able to remove the redundancy and give the bandwidth to public interestest without affecting any unique channels.
> 
> Of course, they may also determine that some music channels of the same genre are redundant, whereas you (or others) find them unique.


Only nine channels are redundent, Radio Disney, ESPN Radio, E! Radio, Bloomberg Radio, Fox News & Talk, Fox News Channel, CNN, CNN Headline News and CNBc.


----------



## waynenm

Which means 15 channels are at risk? If we lose XM 40, 45, 50, 70 and some of my other favorites. I'll be going back to MP3s in the car..


----------



## Drew2k

Why is there an assumption that channels will be dropped? Is each provider maxed out on bandwidth? If they're not, I would expect with the combined might of the two companies they could figure out a way to add 15+ new channels to meet the FCC requirements for public service channels (assuming the 9 redundant channels identified by Steve are re-purposed to the same end) so that no existing unique channels are dropped.


----------



## waynenm

I hope you're right Drew. I really like XM, and it would be like the many times I've lost favorite FM stations over the years if channels are dropped for no reason. If you're willing to pay for a subscription, and that includes commercial free content, it's a bit daunting to have the provider start screwing with your programming. I guess we'll all see what happens next.


----------



## James Long

Drew2k said:


> Why is there an assumption that channels will be dropped? Is each provider maxed out on bandwidth?


How many channels were 'borrowed' for sports coverage? If they don't have space for seven or eight channels free for the overflowing sports where are they going to the the space for new permanent channels?

If this deal is accepted it's either lost channels or more compression.


----------



## ajc68

So why not get new satellites up there to alleviate the space issues?


----------



## paulman182

CopyCat said:


> The big shame in all this is that they (FCC) can let anyone receive remote stations on satellite radio, but thanks to those in Congress not understanding the bill they passed and listening to the hired lobby for local TV stations we can not receive remote (distant) TV networks via satellite.


The difference is that the TV stations do not want to be received by distant viewers, but the radio stations do want to be on satellite.


----------



## Teagore

i just want to get a few things straight here, it's really annoying reading people speculate about some of this when i know some of the answers because i pay attention to a service that i am paying for. first, the radios. Mel Karmazin, the ceo of sirius, who would also be the ceo of the new combined company, has stated on Howards show several times that new radios are not necessary right away because they can simulcast stations across the radios. picking up xm stations on sirius radios and vice-versa. it has to do with cost and convenience. imagine microsoft buying nintendo, do you think both companies would still make their own game systems? same thing here. second, as far as who is bailing who out. It has been stated by several people (including Mel) that if the merger didn't go through, one of the companies would more then likely declare bankruptcy, and then be bought by the surviving company anyway. but going that route has drawbacks for the bankrupt company. so yes, it is needed by both companies, but more then likely one of them was going to go bye-bye anyway. but it's funny how the company who'[s doing the buying (sirius) has a stock price of $2.62 and xm as a stock price of $11.30. who's bailing out who? third, tcusta00, i don't know where you get your numbers from, but if you check http:///www.orbitcast.com/archives/satellite-radio-subscribers-the-gap-between-sirius-and-xm-is-closing.html you will see just how close in the numbers the two companies really are. the reason the merger has taken soooo long is because of the free radio lobbyists putting $$ in the pockets of the people who vote on these things. they are a big group with a lot of influence. you think taking this long is normal? they have been against the merger from the beginning. lastly, as far as the bandwidth issue goes, i fully expect dozens of music channels to go bye-bye. using up all that bandwidth for duplicates of the same music "categories" would be a waste. 2 70's channels, 2 90's channels, ect. the only real issue is the 2 companies deciding what channels to keep from each others programming when they consolidate. btw, sorry if this came off as a bullish rant :hurah:


----------



## Lee L

For some info not straight from the company, the services are both maxed out right now and they want to do video. If they have to give services to public intrest channels, they have to either drop some they have now or starve them for bit rate. This will have a massive impact on quality as the current sound quality suffers at times.

As far as not needing a radio, how will they give me the simulcast channels considering the bandwidth crunch? They can;t. So, I guess they are just going to kill the quality to give me some Sirius channels that I do not want, since if I did want them, I am free to get Sirius tomorrow. If they would bring out a new radio, then I could at least getboth.

Then, how can they say that they only needed to develop a dual band radio but not sell, it, that is marketing BS straight from the Sat Radio companies. Why would they Feds have that requirement in the original deal if they did not mean for the radio to be sold? It was widely reported when the services debuted that they would be coming out with dual band radios soon and both companies never said a thing to deny it, while basking in all the free publicity the news stories gave them. Of course, the original license also said no merger, but why let those silly little things stop us?


Yes there is some duplication, but again, how can that save bandwidth if I have no radio to pick up and decode the Sirus frequencies? Sure, they could take all the decades channels on the 2 services and save 7 channels, but since Mel does not think I need a new radio, they still have to send out the same thing twice. THe best thing they can do is leave everythign alone until they can change out radios for people and then make the changes. 


I would love to be proven wrong, but this is not a good deal for the consumers of Satellite radio. Maybe one or both would have gone out, but what we will get out of this is no better IMO. At least if one went out, another company migh have decided to give it a try.


----------



## itguy05

Drew2k said:


> Why is there an assumption that channels will be dropped? Is each provider maxed out on bandwidth?


Have you heard XM from the satellites lately? Compresssssed to the maxxxxxx. They are treading on being out of bandwidth based on the latest lack of SQ.


----------



## James Long

paulman182 said:


> The difference is that the TV stations do not want to be received by distant viewers, but the radio stations do want to be on satellite.


There is also a rights difference. Any TV station can be aired in any market that the station wants ... all they have to do is sign an agreement with a satellite carrier and have the rights to air their programs in that "foreign" market. The first part is pointless without the second ... who wants to watch WNBC out of NY with all the NBC, syndicated and regional rights content blacked out?

There are market exclusives in radio ... perhaps if satellite radio grows it will go the same way as satellite TV ... with rights owners protecting the local station contracts by not allowing a satellite competitor. Then again perhaps satellite radio will be allowed to continue being above exclusive rights. It's all up to the industry.


----------



## satwood

Here is an interesting commentary on this subject from some colleagues of mine.

http://displaydaily.com/2008/06/16/will-the-sirius-xm-merger-boost-mobile-video-services/

Steve


----------



## Drew2k

itguy05 said:


> Have you heard XM from the satellites lately? Compresssssed to the maxxxxxx. They are treading on being out of bandwidth based on the latest lack of SQ.


As opposed to XM from ....?

Yes, I have heard XM from the satellite lately - every day in fact, as it's in the car - and it sounds great to me.


----------



## Drew2k

Teagore said:


> Mel Karmazin, the ceo of sirius, who would also be the ceo of the new combined company, has stated on Howards show several times that new radios are not necessary right away because they can simulcast stations across the radios. picking up xm stations on sirius radios and vice-versa.


So you're saying they each have the bandwidth to simulcast the alternate service? Hmmm ...



itguy05 said:


> Compresssssed to the maxxxxxx. They are treading on being out of bandwidth based on the latest lack of SQ.


Others here think they're already overcompressed as it is, implying that there is NO bandwidth ...


----------



## Lee L

Don;t beleive the hype. Once the combination is done, they will absolutely have to reduce choices and increase compression drastically to do what Mel is saying.

For proof that XM is to the max. Each year when they add their 4 or 5 holiday channels, they have to get rid of the same number of channels temporarily. People complain about it every year, so you know that they would not do it if they had the extra bandwidth.


----------



## n-spring

Drew2k said:


> As opposed to XM from ....?
> 
> Yes, I have heard XM from the satellite lately - every day in fact, as it's in the car - and it sounds great to me.


Drew, I agree with you. The music channels to me sound great. But other channels have always sounded like crap. Take the XL Comedy channel. It's always sounded like AM radio to me.


----------



## tcusta00

n-spring said:


> Drew, I agree with you. The music channels to me sound great. But other channels have always sounded like crap. Take the XL Comedy channel. It's always sounded like AM radio to me.


I listen to that channel almost every day and it sounds fine to me... The problem with that channel in particular is that the recordings are made from comedy clubs across the country with different quality soundboards (if it's a soundboard recording at all) so you have serious variations in quality. When Sonny Fox does his in-between bit commentaries and interviews the quality is always fine to me.


----------



## n-spring

Drew2k said:


> Why is there an assumption that channels will be dropped?


I realize this is (very) old data, but when the idea of merged satellite services cropped up, a proposed line-up was leaked to the Internet.

http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=100820

One of the channels to be dropped was XM 82. I voiced my displeasure way back then to XM.


----------



## n-spring

tcusta00 said:


> I listen to that channel almost every day and it sounds fine to me... The problem with that channel in particular is that the recordings are made from comedy clubs across the country with different quality soundboards (if it's a soundboard recording at all) so you have serious variations in quality. When Sonny Fox does his in-between bit commentaries and interviews the quality is always fine to me.


You must have tin ears. There's no comparison between XM 150 and any of the other music channels. Listen to the same comedy recording from somewhere like iTunes or Rhapsody. It's full fidelity stereo. XM compresses the crap out of their "voice only" channels, except for XM 202 where O&A are.


----------



## tcusta00

n-spring said:


> You must have tin ears. There's no comparison between XM 150 and any of the other music channels. Listen to the same comedy recording from somewhere like iTunes or Rhapsody. It's full fidelity stereo. XM compresses the crap out of their "voice only" channels, except for XM 202 where O&A are.


I guess I have tin ears then.


----------



## itguy05

Drew2k said:


> As opposed to XM from ....?


DirecTV or online.



> Yes, I have heard XM from the satellite lately - every day in fact, as it's in the car - and it sounds great to me.


I used to think XM sounded OK. Then I tried the competition and found that, while neither is CD quality the dog sounds a little better with less harsh SSSHHH sounds and just sounds more "natural". However, the XMHD Channels sound fantastic, both of them.


----------



## Richard King

n-spring said:


> It's full fidelity stereo. XM compresses the crap out of their "voice only" channels, *except for XM 202 where O&A are*.


That's too bad. Talk about material in need of huge amounts of compression.


----------



## Drew2k

itguy05 said:


> DirecTV or online.


I would think if XM was bit-starved for transmissions direct from their birds to their receivers, then XM would also be bit-starved from their birds to DIRECTV's uplink centers back down to DIRECTV receivers ...


----------



## itguy05

Drew2k said:


> I would think if XM was bit-starved for transmissions direct from their birds to their receivers, then XM would also be bit-starved from their birds to DIRECTV's uplink centers back down to DIRECTV receivers ...


From what they were saying on the XMfan.com forums, the feed from XM to DTV is pretty much full bandwidth and then DTV compresses them for the birds. The only reason XM and Sirius are bit starved from the sats is because they both have a very limited bandwidth - similar to the situation on DTV's non-HD channels.

I do know that the sound out of the DTV receiver is much better than what I get off the satellites.


----------



## paulman182

Drew2k said:


> I would think if XM was bit-starved for transmissions direct from their birds to their receivers, then XM would also be bit-starved from their birds to DIRECTV's uplink centers back down to DIRECTV receivers ...


 I don't believe that DirecTV picks the signal up from the same XM satellites that consumers do. The feed on my XM receiver is a couple of seconds behind the feed coming from DirecTV.

Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can comment, but I think DirecTV gets a fiber feed or its own satellite feed, which may not have the severe bandwidth limitations one finds on the consumer XM satellites.


----------



## James Long

It certainly would be a lot simpler to work with direct feeds from XM (or Sirius for DISH customers). Can you imagine a bank of 60 satellite radios feeding audio to encoders? It's already encoded at XM/Sirius ... why not just tap off of those feeds?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

If only XM would drop their traffic and weather service... Those have gotta eat up bandwidth. (http://www.xmradio.com/weather/index.xmc)


----------



## Lee L

Actually, the traffic and weather channels are compressed to crazy levels so while they (and the channels like CNN, MSNBC, ESPN, etc do take up space, you can get several of them in the space of one music channel.


----------



## AtlantaAdGuy

Why does everyone assume XM and Sirius will carry the same basic programming after the merger.

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to make one of the services more music oriented and the other more news, information and sports oriented. Thus ultimately giving people a reason to subscribe to both?

Plus, not duplicating some of the programming that's currently on both services would free up additional bandwidth for new programming.


----------



## James Long

AtlantaAdGuy said:


> Why does everyone assume XM and Sirius will carry the same basic programming after the merger.


See http://www.siriusmerger.com/

The planed programming packages are up on that site. We assume it because we are told.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Lee - I'm not talking about traffic and weather channels. I'm talking about XM WX (see link in earlier post).


----------



## n-spring

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Lee - I'm not talking about traffic and weather channels. I'm talking about XM WX (see link in earlier post).


XM WX is a data service, which most likely takes up very little bandwidth in the scheme of things.


----------



## DirecTV3049

FCC Commissioner Adelstein wants more concessions - and he may be the key vote to approving this merger. More here: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080718/D9205MQG1.html


----------



## Richard King

He wants them to give away 25% of their bandwidth. The guy is nuts and, obviously has no real world, non-government experience. Then again, he's only half as stupid as those who wanted them to give away half of the bandwidth earlier in this process. Anyone who wants this to go through had better hope this guy's vote isn't needed.

I wonder what 75 channels of "non commercial and minority" programmnig would be like. I don't know if there is enough public radio type programming out there.


----------



## syphix

Adelstein votes NO.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOz1FYWduExBs1ZzZ6SfJvkPX1DAD923KS0G1

It's down to Tate.


----------



## syphix

Updated story:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOz1FYWduExBs1ZzZ6SfJvkPX1DAD923L7S80


> "I was hoping to forge a bipartisan solution that would offer consumers more diversity in programming, better price protection, expanded choices among innovative devices and real competition with digital radio," it read. "Instead, it appears they're going to get a monopoly with window dressing. We really missed a great opportunity to reach a bipartisan agreement that would have benefited the American people."


----------

