# What does XM-Sirius merger mean for Directv subs?



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

http://www.247wallst.com/2007/02/xm_and_sirius_t.html


----------



## Thunder7 (Nov 16, 2005)

Really? Hmm.....wonder if it will be allowed as it will create a monopoly (anyone remember D* and E* trying to merge a while back?).

I can see where they need to partner (or merge) with others, but I more expected them to each merge with the Sat TV guys. Since XM and DirecTV have a partner ship and Sirius have one, I kind of thought that made more sense. Having the radio guys go together still may be a hard road to go down.


----------



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

Thunder7 said:


> Really? Hmm.....wonder if it will be allowed as it will create a monopoly (anyone remember D* and E* trying to merge a while back?).
> 
> I can see where they need to partner (or merge) with others, but I more expected them to each merge with the Sat TV guys. Since XM and DirecTV have a partner ship and Sirius have one, I kind of thought that made more sense. Having the radio guys go together still may be a hard road to go down.


Yeah, seems weird. But I wonder if government cares enough to block the merger, since both are struggling so much financially?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I thought there was some clause in the law to allow satellite radio that prohibited a merger?

Edit: http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/fcc-chairman-says-rules-ban-satellite-radio-merger.html


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Maybe they will give us both channels. I need HAIR NATION baby


----------



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I thought there was some clause in the law to allow satellite radio that prohibited a merger?
> 
> Edit: http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/fcc-chairman-says-rules-ban-satellite-radio-merger.html


Laywers must have found a loophole or something. FCC thing seems airtight, though. Gee, no free Howard Stern?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

tstarn said:


> Yeah, seems weird. But I wonder if government cares enough to block the merger, since both are struggling so much financially?


Good point. If both companies are suffering financially, you may see the government allowing it. As for what it means - well I guess it would depend on who bought who. You would be able to save something by eliminating the redundancies. But before the government would allow something like this, both XM and Sirius would need to demonstrate, I would think, that there is no way to save either company without a merger (one reason I gotta think that Sirius is having these problems, e.g., is that they paid so much for Howard Stern, who's been a disappointment, financially speaking, for the company - not a slam on the guy personally, or on his show, but from what I understand he isn't drawing in the listenership that Sirius thought that he would). Meaning, if the problem is due to unnecessarily high expenditures on the part of these companies, the government may say "sorry - but we believe you can remain solvent if you cut back on some services, so we're not going to allow this."

Like others, though, I would think mergers with DirecTV and Echostar make more sense than a merger with one another.


----------



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

jpl said:


> Good point. If both companies are suffering financially, you may see the government allowing it. As for what it means - well I guess it would depend on who bought who. You would be able to save something by eliminating the redundancies. But before the government would allow something like this, both XM and Sirius would need to demonstrate, I would think, that there is no way to save either company without a merger (one reason I gotta think that Sirius is having these problems, e.g., is that they paid so much for Howard Stern, who's been a disappointment, financially speaking, for the company - not a slam on the guy personally, or on his show, but from what I understand he isn't drawing in the listenership that Sirius thought that he would). Meaning, if the problem is due to unnecessarily high expenditures on the part of these companies, the government may say "sorry - but we believe you can remain solvent if you cut back on some services, so we're not going to allow this."
> 
> Like others, though, I would think mergers with DirecTV and Echostar make more sense than a merger with one another.


Agree. I listened to Stern off and on since 1986 in the a.m., but wouldn't pay $12 a month for him. They really dumped a load of money on him, and worst of all, their stock met expectations (even though its drooping now) and they had to give him a huge incentive outlay (part of the deal). Frankly, I hardly ever listen to XM as it is, even for free. Guess I miss the point of pay radio. But others, friends, swear by it.

Wonder if either will make it in the long run. Have enough trouble listing to the 10,000 digital music files I've accumulated. But it would be good to have Howard back in the a.m. for the right price.

It might just be a PR stunt to try and boost their stocks, but together? Seems weird.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

If XM and Sirius do merge, how the hell do I keep _Howard Stern_ OFF my XM Roady?


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

jpl said:


> , I would think, that there is no way to save either company without a merger (one reason I gotta think that Sirius is having these problems, e.g., is that they paid so much for Howard Stern, who's been a disappointment, financially speaking, for the company - n


Which speaks to the ridiculous deal they gave him, because apparently he has hit huge performance bonuses his first two years. I believe he got some 80 million dollars for this past year for them hitting certain subscriber numbers, and he got a large bonus the year before.

I also seem to understand he has not delivered as they would like, so I wonder who is the dolt who wrote a deal that allowed him to get even MORE money, for under-delivering.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a huge Stern fan...I think he's occasionally funny, but could live without him.

With that said, I bought the stock just after the announcement because I thought it was a smart business move. While I'm not a huge fan, _many_ others are, which was evident in his ratings when he was still on terrestrial radio. Since he'd joined Sirius, they subscriber basis has skyrocketed, so I don't know how you can conclude that he's not as good, not worth the money, a bad buy, etc.

All signs point to the deal being a good move. I think the tough thing will be trying to keep him after the 5-year deal ends, as he's definitely tiring of getting up so early in the morning.


----------



## left jeff (Jan 30, 2007)

I'll believe this when it is actually announced. There has been rumors of this before, it always ended up being nothing.

As far as Stern is concerned, they had 600,000 subscribers when he went on....they have over 5 million or something now...so I can't see how someone could say he hasn't "delivered". 

I for one listen to him, I got sirius becuase he was going there and I haven't listened to normal old radio with the exception of one local sports show on the am and local cardinals games since. 

$12 a month is no big deal for great entertainment...whether I am listening to Stern or the music channels.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

left jeff said:


> As far as Stern is concerned, they had 600,000 subscribers when he went on....they have over 5 million or something now...so I can't see how someone could say he hasn't "delivered".


We have no way of knowing how many of those signed up for Stern. I almost signed up for Sirius, in addition to the XM I have, but certainly not for his program.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

left jeff said:


> I'll believe this when it is actually announced. There has been rumors of this before, it always ended up being nothing.
> 
> As far as Stern is concerned, they had 600,000 subscribers when he went on....they have over 5 million or something now...so I can't see how someone could say he hasn't "delivered".
> 
> ...


I didn't mean to make this a Howard Stern thread. My only point was that, before the government allows this kind of merger, the companies will probably not only have to demonstrate that they're bleeding money, but that there's nothing that they can individually do to stop the bleeding. I threw Stern in there as one of those decisions. I personally don't know what the numbers look like - I'll freely admit that. I'm just basing it on what I've read in the business pages on the matter. The question will probably be asked - what would getting rid of someone like Stern do to Sirius's bottom line? Undoubtedly they'll lose subscibers, but what will the overall effect be (will the loss in revenue exceed the amount that they pay Stern, e.g.)? If it turns out that Stern really is a cash cow for the company (and he may be), then it would be a non-starter.

Before allowing something like this, the government would be looking for assurances that the companies aren't spending like drunken sailors (no disresepect for sailors... just a figure of speech). If the cause of their financial problems is ridiculous spending, the government is likely to reject the bid for a merger, and tell the companies to figure out how to go on a diet.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

If the merger is true, and If it is approved by the appropriate government parties...

It probably won't mean a thing to DirecTV Subs.
DirecTV has a contract in place with XM, and will most likely continue after any said merger.

We don't get every XM channel that is available via XM individual service, on DirecTV... so there is no guarantee that we would get anymore or any less after that merger...

Maybe after the contract is re-negotiated...
IMHO, you may see an "Extended" pack of radio stations, almost as an add-on, to get some of the "special" audio packages such as Stern as others.

I know when they added XM to DirecTV, I canceled my XM subscription.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> We have no way of knowing how many of those signed up for Stern. I almost signed up for Sirius, in addition to the XM I have, but certainly not for his program.


Then there is that aspect too. I was going to ask the same question. From what I read about Stern's performance - the disappointment wasn't in Sirius growth, but in the number of people actually listening to him. Sirius, I know, also signed deals with various car companies - so you can get their units as additional equipment in a new car. And many car rental companies started offering it as well. Shouldn't be that hard to determine what his listenership really is - I'm sure they track it. But again, I didn't mean to make this a thread about Stern.


----------



## left jeff (Jan 30, 2007)

jpl said:


> I didn't mean to make this a Howard Stern thread. My only point was that, before the government allows this kind of merger, the companies will probably not only have to demonstrate that they're bleeding money, but that there's nothing that they can individually do to stop the bleeding. I threw Stern in there as one of those decisions. I personally don't know what the numbers look like - I'll freely admit that. I'm just basing it on what I've read in the business pages on the matter. The question will probably be asked - what would getting rid of someone like Stern do to Sirius's bottom line? Undoubtedly they'll lose subscibers, but what will the overall effect be (will the loss in revenue exceed the amount that they pay Stern, e.g.)? If it turns out that Stern really is a cash cow for the company (and he may be), then it would be a non-starter.
> 
> Before allowing something like this, the government would be looking for assurances that the companies aren't spending like drunken sailors (no disresepect for sailors... just a figure of speech). If the cause of their financial problems is ridiculous spending, the government is likely to reject the bid for a merger, and tell the companies to figure out how to go on a diet.


I hear ya...BUT...Stern got me to buy satelite. I got it about two months before he came on. Within a week I was completely hooked on Sat and was recomending it to my friends....based on the music and sports. I got two friends hooked up with it, plus an extra radio for my wife's car.

If Stern left, I would still keep sat. Stern's value is in getting people to sign up, not necessarily keeping them there. That sounds odd, but its true. It's not that expensive and there really is something for everyone there. Now what if Stern left and went to XM? Hmm..that would be tricky. I would probably switch. If Stern retired i'd keep sirius.


----------



## left jeff (Jan 30, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> We have no way of knowing how many of those signed up for Stern. I almost signed up for Sirius, in addition to the XM I have, but certainly not for his program.


maybe...but its an odd "coincidence" don't ya think?


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

I actually didn't even realize this was in the D* forum...I thought it was in the satellite radio forum.

I just need to reiterate that other than random, unsubstantiated banter in the media about Stern being poorer since switching to Sirius, losing viewership, etc., there is absolutely no proof of that. Subs have gone up since he's been there (no, you can't prove that they're because of him, but you can't prove they have nothing to do with him). As a result, I don't think you can necessarily make the argument either way, although the argument that he's had a strong impact is more likely, especially due to the increase in subs just from his announcement to 1/1/06.

But realizing the thread actually asks how it will impact D*, I would say they'd probably consolidate similar channels, so instead of the current classic rock station you get on D*, you might get the new melded version. Of course, E* has Sirius, so as Earl alluded, I wonder if once the contracts expire they might go with 1 satellite provider or the other.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

DonCorleone said:


> I actually didn't even realize this was in the D* forum...I thought it was in the satellite radio forum.
> 
> I just need to reiterate that other than random, unsubstantiated banter in the media about Stern being poorer since switching to Sirius, losing viewership, etc., there is absolutely no proof of that. Subs have gone up since he's been there (no, you can't prove that they're because of him, but you can't prove they have nothing to do with him). As a result, I don't think you can necessarily make the argument either way, although the argument that he's had a strong impact is more likely, especially due to the increase in subs just from his announcement to 1/1/06.
> 
> But realizing the thread actually asks how it will impact D*, I would say they'd probably consolidate similar channels, so instead of the current classic rock station you get on D*, you might get the new melded version. Of course, E* has Sirius, so as Earl alluded, I wonder if once the contracts expire they might go with 1 satellite provider or the other.


Fair enough, but my original post had to do with analyzing the likelihood of such a merger happening in the first place. I thought Tstarn's analysis was spot-on - that even though it may create a monopoly, since both companies were bleeding cash, the government may allow it anyway. Before a merger can affect DirecTV, it actually has to happen first. I was simply speculating on what reasons the government could give for rejecting such a bid.

And the listenership for Stern does matter. If Sirius is seen as being really badly managed, and if that bad management is causing the financial hardship for the company, then all such decisions will be analyzed by the government. That's all I was getting at.

At the end of the day, DirecTV will still have some kind of music service. Either XM, some XM/Sirius hybrid, or they'll go back to MusicChoice. Personally, I like the XM service, but as long as they have some music service (it makes a nice change) I'll be happy.


----------



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

jpl said:


> Fair enough, but my original post had to do with analyzing the likelihood of such a merger happening in the first place. I thought Tstarn's analysis was spot-on - that even though it may create a monopoly, since both companies were bleeding cash, the government may allow it anyway. Before a merger can affect DirecTV, it actually has to happen first. I was simply speculating on what reasons the government could give for rejecting such a bid.
> 
> And the listenership for Stern does matter. If Sirius is seen as being really badly managed, and if that bad management is causing the financial hardship for the company, then all such decisions will be analyzed by the government. That's all I was getting at.
> 
> At the end of the day, DirecTV will still have some kind of music service. Either XM, some XM/Sirius hybrid, or they'll go back to MusicChoice. Personally, I like the XM service, but as long as they have some music service (it makes a nice change) I'll be happy.


Same here, even though it's used sparingly. Stern won't be free, as Earl hinted. If a merger happens, they will take their "star" performers and charge extra for them, in my view. How much would it annoy the "paying" customers if sat subs got Stern or other headliners for nothing? Just curious if there would be a backlash.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Could DirecTV and Xm radio merge? Yes. But could Sirius and Xm radio merge? NO.. This satellite merge has been going on for two years and since the threat to merge is not possible, it sounds to me like a rumor. Kevin Martin would not allow it, SO LET LIBERTY MEDIA OR NEWS CORP BUY XM SATELLITE RADIO, AND DirecTV is partineer. ALL RUMORS, ALL RUMORS:down: I AM SORRY, IF I AM WRONG, XM SATELLITE RADIO HEAD QUARTERS KNOWS NOTTA, OFCOURSE TO CALL THEM AT 1-202-380-4000, AND THEY WILL SAY WERE NOT SELLING XM TO SIRIUS, AND MEL KARMIZAR..... KNOCK ON WOOD...:bang


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Ok, I just read this...



> The big question in 2007, analysts suggest, will be the outcome of long-rumored alliances between U.S. broadcasting giants DirecTV and Echostar and between DARS operators Sirius and XM Radio, and a looming shakeout among MSS/ATC operators. *FCC Chairman Kevin Martin recently put the kibosh on a Sirius/XM tie-up, at least for now, by saying they would not be allowed to merge under current regulatory rules.*


It's at the bottom of the page here and the article is dated yesterday.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

tstarn said:


> Same here, even though it's used sparingly. Stern won't be free, as Earl hinted. If a merger happens, they will take their "star" performers and charge extra for them, in my view. How much would it annoy the "paying" customers if sat subs got Stern or other headliners for nothing? Just curious if there would be a backlash.


If I'm not mistaken, I believe his contract stipulates that it can't be a separate tier. That was 1 of the main reasons he picked Sirius over XM b/c XM wanted to charge more for him and he didn't want that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DonCorleone said:


> If I'm not mistaken, I believe his contract stipulates that it can't be a separate tier. That was 1 of the main reasons he picked Sirius over XM b/c XM wanted to charge more for him and he didn't want that.


That would probably apply to the "radio" portion, but when it is transfered to a different distribution, I bet there will be some language in there that would change that.

As you are not actually "paying" for XM service package on DirecTV, it is just part of the packages.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Could DirecTV and Xm radio merge? Yes. But could Sirius and Xm radio merge? NO.. This satellite merge has been going on for two years and since the threat to merge is not possible, it sounds to me like a rumor. Kevin Martin would not allow it, SO LET LIBERTY MEDIA OR NEWS CORP BUY XM SATELLITE RADIO, AND DirecTV is partineer. ALL RUMORS, ALL RUMORS:down: I AM SORRY, IF I AM WRONG, XM SATELLITE RADIO HEAD QUARTERS KNOWS NOTTA, OFCOURSE TO CALL THEM AT 1-202-380-4000, AND THEY WILL SAY WERE NOT SELLING XM TO SIRIUS, AND MEL KARMIZAR..... KNOCK ON WOOD...:bang


:scratchin Got Prozac?


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Nick said:


> If XM and Sirius do merge, how the hell do I keep _Howard Stern_ OFF my XM Roady?


Easy, don't tune to his channel.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Could DirecTV and Xm radio merge? Yes. But could Sirius and Xm radio merge? NO.. This satellite merge has been going on for two years and since the threat to merge is not possible, it sounds to me like a rumor. Kevin Martin would not allow it, SO LET LIBERTY MEDIA OR NEWS CORP BUY XM SATELLITE RADIO, AND DirecTV is partineer. ALL RUMORS, ALL RUMORS:down: I AM SORRY, IF I AM WRONG, XM SATELLITE RADIO HEAD QUARTERS KNOWS NOTTA, OFCOURSE TO CALL THEM AT 1-202-380-4000, AND THEY WILL SAY WERE NOT SELLING XM TO SIRIUS, AND MEL KARMIZAR..... KNOCK ON WOOD...:bang


Are you sure about that?:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2887179


----------



## Mavrick (Feb 1, 2006)

It seems offical now for it has been posted on XM radios website.

http://xmradio.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1423


----------



## calwan (Dec 28, 2006)

left jeff said:


> I hear ya...BUT...Stern got me to buy satelite. I got it about two months before he came on. Within a week I was completely hooked on Sat and was recomending it to my friends....based on the music and sports. I got two friends hooked up with it, plus an extra radio for my wife's car.
> 
> If Stern left, I would still keep sat. Stern's value is in getting people to sign up, not necessarily keeping them there. That sounds odd, but its true. It's not that expensive and there really is something for everyone there. Now what if Stern left and went to XM? Hmm..that would be tricky. I would probably switch. If Stern retired i'd keep sirius.


Totally agree. I got Sirius for Stern and would/will stay when he leaves. It just doesn't compare to terrestrial radio.

I would also hope to see the Sirius channels replace some of the XM channels on Directv when the merger goes through. Sirirus has some great music channels!

Finally, Stern has been a boom to Sirius. Lets just say he only brought 1M Subs, thats $144M/year he is bringing in for Sirius minus his $100M salary still leaves $44M. But I think the real number is much higher. Also, most of those subs will stay when he leaves in 5 years, so it is all gravy at that point. Business is a long term investment (many companies and CEOs forget that, but Mel doesn't!).


----------



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

Mavrick said:


> It seems offical now for it has been posted on XM radios website.
> 
> http://xmradio.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1423


Of course, the only thing "official" is the announcement.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

A merger could be 'sirius'-ly bad for us XM subscribers.

Lack of competition is bad, and they could royally screw up whatever it is we like about either service.

(If the Old Time Radio Channel gets cut or made part-time like o Sirius, they'll not only loose me as a custimer, they'll have me as an enemy....)

ApK


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I am a big NFL fan (in fact, my license plate reads NFL FAN), and when I was looking into satellite radio, I was thinking first and foremost about listening to the Twins games on my boat during the summer fishing months. OK, plus one for XM and their MLB contract. Then I found out that the NFL was exclusive to Sirius. OK, plus one for Sirius. Thank goodness for procrastination. Then I hear about the deal brewing between Sirius and Stearn. Minus 50 for Sirius and I've been with XM ever since.

As for what it means for D* customers? As long as it doesn't affect the pricing, I could care less. I have a home base for XM connected to my stereo and a unit in my car. I never listen to music through DirecTv.

I hate to think of the money I pay XM going toward paying checks to Stearn that Sirius couldn't write, but I can't do anything about that. That's business.


----------



## kintaro (Dec 27, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> I am a big NFL fan (in fact, my license plate reads NFL FAN), and when I was looking into satellite radio, I was thinking first and foremost about listening to the Twins games on my boat during the summer fishing months. OK, plus one for XM and their MLB contract. Then I found out that the NFL was exclusive to Sirius. OK, plus one for Sirius. Thank goodness for procrastination. Then I hear about the deal brewing between Sirius and Stearn. Minus 50 for Sirius and I've been with XM ever since.
> 
> As for what it means for D* customers? As long as it doesn't affect the pricing, I could care less. I have a home base for XM connected to my stereo and a unit in my car. I never listen to music through DirecTv.
> 
> I hate to think of the money I pay XM going toward paying checks to Stearn that Sirius couldn't write, but I can't do anything about that. That's business.


You make it seem like XM is buying out Sirius, but that is not the case. Read the articles that have been linked.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

kintaro said:


> You make it seem like XM is buying out Sirius, but that is not the case. Read the articles that have been linked.


?????

The point of my post is that I chose XM hands down because they DIDN'T have Stearn. If they are merging to become one entity, doesn't that mean I will pay my bill to a company that has all of the XM and Sirius programming under one company (which would include Stearn)?

I don't understand where you determined I was making it sound like one bought out the other? Unless I am completely missing the meaning of the merger (which I could be - its been a long day).


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tstarn said:


> Agree. I listened to Stern off and on since 1986 in the a.m., but wouldn't pay $12 a month for him. They really dumped a load of money on him, and worst of all, their stock met expectations (even though its drooping now) and they had to give him a huge incentive outlay (part of the deal). Frankly, I hardly ever listen to XM as it is, even for free. Guess I miss the point of pay radio. But others, friends, swear by it.
> 
> Wonder if either will make it in the long run. Have enough trouble listing to the 10,000 digital music files I've accumulated. But it would be good to have Howard back in the a.m. for the right price.
> 
> It might just be a PR stunt to try and boost their stocks, but together? Seems weird.


I'm with you, there's regular radio, HD radio, Internet radio. I see no reason to pay!


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> ?????
> 
> The point of my post is that I chose XM hands down because they DIDN'T have Stearn. If they are merging to become one entity, doesn't that mean I will pay my bill to a company that has all of the XM and Sirius programming under one company (which would include Stearn)?


Why do you care if they _do_ have Stern? As long as they have what you want, wouldn't you get it for that reason? Sirius has Martha Stewart and OutQ, neither of which I have any desire to listen to, but that has no bearing on my decision. Just seems like an odd way to decide which 1 to buy.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

tstarn said:


> Of course, the only thing "official" is the announcement.


True. If DISH and D couldn't merge, I don't see how XM and Sirius can merge?


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

DonCorleone said:


> Why do you care if they _do_ have Stern? As long as they have what you want, wouldn't you get it for that reason? Sirius has Martha Stewart and OutQ, neither of which I have any desire to listen to, but that has no bearing on my decision. Just seems like an odd way to decide which 1 to buy.


Completely agree. It's not like if you get Sirius that Howard is going to jump out of your receiver and start defecating all over your car :lol:

If you don't like the content on a certain channel, just don't tune to it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> I thought there was some clause in the law to allow satellite radio that prohibited a merger?
> 
> Edit: http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/fcc-chairman-says-rules-ban-satellite-radio-merger.html


the current licenses cannot be owned by one party. But that could be modified. No change in law is requied.


----------



## Kevin Dupuy (Nov 29, 2006)

Dolly said:


> True. If DISH and D couldn't merge, I don't see how XM and Sirius can merge?


Well, they probably can't. But, now and back in '02 when they tried, DISH and DIRECTV were not exactly in very bad shape finacially. Apparently, XM and Sirius are not in good shape. I don't know specifically how they're doing, but if they are in a situation where they may be, in like 3 years to where one of them would have to shut down, then competition is dead anyway. If both of them are in that situation, then I could see the FCC not wanting to go from 2 sat radio companies to none, and then they would probably give them the go-ahead.

Now if someone could explain the BellSouth/AT&T merger, and why that was allowed to me... Never mind, that's for another website...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Kevin Dupuy said:


> Well, they probably can't. But, now and back in '02 when they tried, DISH and DIRECTV were not exactly in very bad shape finacially. Apparently, XM and Sirius are not in good shape. I don't know specifically how they're doing, but if they are in a situation where they may be, in like 3 years to where one of them would have to shut down, then competition is dead anyway. If both of them are in that situation, then I could see the FCC not wanting to go from 2 sat radio companies to none, and then they would probably give them the go-ahead.
> 
> Now if someone could explain the BellSouth/AT&T merger, and why that was allowed to me... Never mind, that's for another website...


According to the article linked in the original posting, they're both REALLY in the red. Whether it will be allowed really depends on whether both companies can show that one or both are doomed unless the merger happens. That goes back to my postings about looking into their management. If both companies got in the red due to ridiculously bad and risky management decisions, then the government may just tell them "too bad... you made this mess on your own, you go fix it..."

Some time ago I watched a special on TV dealing with the rebirth of Chrysler. When Iococa came on board the company was in REAL trouble. He wanted to save it, but doing so meant a huge influx of cash, as well as some alleviation of debt due to things like pensions. So he went before Congress - and he was grilled mercilessly over the fact that Chrysler was where it was because the company had been reckless, and was asked to provide assurances that the company would correct its problems. Iococa gave back just as much as he gave - I saw one part where he was pounding the table, and all but yelling at the Congressmen. At the end of the day, he won his argument (mainly because he wasn't the one that was responsible for bringing them to the brink of extinction). I think this merger will fall along the same lines. They need to demonstrate that the merger is borne out of necessity, and they were brought to this point due to forces that were largely out of their control. If they can do that (and I happen to think they will) then the merger will go through.

As for what the means in terms of programming - well that's anyone's guess.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Nick said:


> If XM and Sirius do merge, how the hell do I keep _Howard Stern_ OFF my XM Roady?


Better Stern than Limbaugh.......:lol: 
Hey I might get Air America SWEET!!!!!!!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> Better Stern than Limbaugh.......:lol:
> Hey I might get Air America SWEET!!!!!!!


You mean that Sirius carries Air America? Wow, no WONDER they're losing money


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Last week, xm satellite radio had to get a loan for xm 4 satellite. They were in more trouble then Sirius was. January, Sirius had a cash flow..


----------



## hambonewd (Feb 7, 2007)

hopefully this doesnt ruin my sirius experience. use to have xm, now have sirius. and let me tell you---sirius is far far far superior in content than xm. and i dont have sirius for stern. this opinion is based on music content only---plus nfl to a degree.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

hambonewd said:


> sirius is far far far superior in content than xm.


For your content needs, maybe. Not for me.


----------



## hambonewd (Feb 7, 2007)

well i base my opinion mainly on the rock stations


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> Better Stern than Limbaugh.......:lol:


Here here!


----------



## Staszek (Nov 13, 2006)

I dont think this will go through as easily as people think. Even if it does getting through regulations could take a VERY long time. My fathers company went through this recently and they were worried for over a year about retirement plans etc then finally the government squashed the merger after almost 2 years in the making.

They can announce whatever they want but it may never happen.

I want to answer a few points, to people who specifically bought XM because it didnt have Stern :nono2: I would have hoped you would have bought XM because you thought the content was better, there is a dial you can not only turn Stern off but you can actually set it so his channel is blocked on most recievers.

As for which company is more in trouble, well they both are, but Sirius has alot of momentum and XM is on a down swing. If you want some proof they named Mel Karmzin as the Chief, why would the CEO of the smaller and supposedly more in trouble company take over both?

I cant believe that someone could say that Stern didnt have an effect, how can you go from 600,000 subs to 6million in a years, even if you only want to credit him with half of that thats still pretty amazing and it was more then expected, Sirius only projected him to bring over 1.5mil in his first year he blew that out of the water.

As for its inpact on DTV, I dont see it having any impact at all its going to take a while before it all gets sorted out and then you will probably have a mixing of the stations.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> Here here!


Yeah, I guess Limbaugh will JUST have to settle for his 20 million radio listeners...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Staszek said:


> I cant believe that someone could say that Stern didnt have an effect, how can you go from 600,000 subs to 6million in a years, even if you only want to credit him with half of that thats still pretty amazing and it was more then expected, Sirius only projected him to bring over 1.5mil in his first year he blew that out of the water.


For the record, I never said that Stern had no impact. I simply reiterated what I read - that his ratings didn't keep pace with the amount spent on bringing him on board. Even if ALL that growth could be attributed solely to bringing on Stern, that still doesn't mean that it was a good business decision. If (and this is pure speculation - just for purposes of illustration) you spend $100 million to launch a new feature to bring in extra listenership, and you "only" bring in an exta $80 million in new listenership, is the $100 million worth it? No, it's not. Even if Stern is that big of a draw you need to consider what he actually brought to the bottom line of the company before making an assessment that he was actually good for Sirius. Was he? I have no idea. I'm simply stating that the business pages report that Stern wasn't bringing in the business that they expected. And when the government looks at this deal, one thing they're going to ask is "are you in the red because of market forces beyond your control? Or is it because of bad and risky business decisions?" That's all I was getting at.


----------



## UTVLamented (Oct 18, 2006)

jpl, the business pages must be "math challenged". A simple calc tells you that even if Stern only brought $1 million subs, that is $156 million in annual revenue, which far exceeds his annual salary. Some of those so-called business mags/pages are fronts for companies that own terrestrial radio stations, and knocking Stern and satellite radio was simply self-serving crapola.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

UTVLamented said:


> jpl, the business pages must be "math challenged". A simple calc tells you that even if Stern only brought $1 million subs, that is $156 million in annual revenue, which far exceeds his annual salary. Some of those so-called business mags/pages are fronts for companies that own terrestrial radio stations, and knocking Stern and satellite radio was simply self-serving crapola.


Maybe. Either way, it's really besides the point. I was simply stating that this is something the government will undoubtedly look into. I could have picked a totally different example - but I picked Stern just because I know that the company shelled out big bucks to bring him on board. I never made the contention that he had no impact to the growth of Sirius. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but my point had nothing whatsoever to do with Howard Stern in particular - I just used him as an example of A business decision by Sirius - good, bad or indifferent.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

PoitNarf said:


> Completely agree. It's not like if you get Sirius that Howard is going to jump out of your receiver and start defecating all over your car :lol:
> 
> If you don't like the content on a certain channel, just don't tune to it.


It had nothing at all to do with the fact that I'd have to HEAR Stern at all. It was a matter of "voting with my money". I preferred not to become a customer of a company who placed that much emphasis on or chose to invest that much money in Howard Stern. I could have gotten Sirius and would not have listened to Stern at all. But given the scope of his contract with them, I chose to spend my money on XM. I wasn't running in fear of Howard Stern - just voting with my wallet.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jpl said:


> You mean that Sirius carries Air America? Wow, no WONDER they're losing money


Air America is exclusive to Sirius....


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Staszek said:


> I want to answer a few points, to people who specifically bought XM because it didnt have Stern :nono2: I would have hoped you would have bought XM because you thought the content was better, there is a dial you can not only turn Stern off but you can actually set it so his channel is blocked on most recievers.


I could have gotten the content I was looking for with either service. I did not give up something I would have wanted just because of one channel that I never would have listened to anyway.

True, they did not have remote controls when I was a youngster, but I certainly know how to operate them.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I was going to hold off on posting any more to this thread (I'm really beating a dead horse here). But one thought occurred to me - so one more post and that'll be it for me. The business pages MAY be full of crapola when it comes to the listenership for Stern, but with all due respect to those who've claimed that he's been a cash cow for Sirius, your logic defies common sense. Let's say that Stern really IS a cash cow for Sirius. The paid alot for him, but he brought in WAY more than he was paid, because the increase in members went through the roof (way more than Sirius anticipated). Ok, then please someone explain to me one small point -- why is Sirius so far in the red?

If he really is that profitable for Sirius then why all the red ink? Sorry, and this has nothing to do with Stern personally (I used to listen to him when he was actually funny - about 20 - 25 years ago, before he was syndicated - he did the afternoon drive-time on a NYC radio station - now I personally find him moronic and infintile), but the numbers just don't add up.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> Air America is exclusive to Sirius....


Yeah, I know... I was just making a joke. Air America is REALLY swimming in red ink...


----------



## Staszek (Nov 13, 2006)

jpl said:


> I was going to hold off on posting any more to this thread (I'm really beating a dead horse here). But one thought occurred to me - so one more post and that'll be it for me. The business pages MAY be full of crapola when it comes to the listenership for Stern, but with all due respect to those who've claimed that he's been a cash cow for Sirius, your logic defies common sense. Let's say that Stern really IS a cash cow for Sirius. The paid alot for him, but he brought in WAY more than he was paid, because the increase in members went through the roof (way more than Sirius anticipated). Ok, then please someone explain to me one small point -- why is Sirius so far in the red?
> 
> If he really is that profitable for Sirius then why all the red ink? Sorry, and this has nothing to do with Stern personally (I used to listen to him when he was actually funny - about 20 - 25 years ago, before he was syndicated - he did the afternoon drive-time on a NYC radio station - now I personally find him moronic and infintile), but the numbers just don't add up.


I dont think they said that bringing him on would put them into the black in a year, I dont think that is possible of anyone for either of these companies.

They are BOTH in the red because it was an enourmous investment to get these companies going and DTV was in the red for years when it started up.

But if you wanted to take that route, they are LESS in the red then they were before he joined, they posted a positive cashflow for the first time in the 4th quarter of 06, are they out of the woods, not by any means, but thats pretty good for just a year.

XM cant say the same. :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

jpl said:


> Yeah, I guess Limbaugh will JUST have to settle for his 20 million radio listeners...


And with that I give you some Ben Franklin quotes which I feel describe Limbaugh quite well:

"Silence is not always a Sign of Wisdom, but Babbling is ever a folly."

"He that speaks much, is much mistaken."


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

dodge boy said:


> Better Stern than Limbaugh.......:lol:
> Hey I might get Air America SWEET!!!!!!!


You mean the same Air America that is bankrupt and selling everything but the kitchen sink?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> Air America is exclusive to Sirius....


Oh really? Then what is channel 167 on XM? Looks like Air America to me.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Staszek said:


> I dont think they said that bringing him on would put them into the black in a year, I dont think that is possible of anyone for either of these companies.
> 
> They are BOTH in the red because it was an enourmous investment to get these companies going and DTV was in the red for years when it started up.
> 
> ...


Ok, I know I promised to stay away from this thread, but I felt compelled to respond here. First, sorry to say this, but if what you're saying is true then there is no way on earth that the government is going to allow the merger. Both companies appear to be contending that market forces are causing contractions in the market, making a merger necessary. If it were the case that the company is less in the red because of Stern, and is just recouping the initial investment dollars, then it's only a matter of time until they go into the black - in other words the problem, at least for Sirius, wouldn't be the contraction of the market - but just a miscalculation on the size of the market. In which case, I believe the government would turn down a merger request -- unless it can be shown that XM is in such dire straights that without the merger it's going belly-up. And even then it would be iffy -- if the market really is smaller than either company initially anticipated, then the argument could be made that one of the two SHOULD go out of business. Combining the two companies wouldn't necessarily, at that point, put the resulting company in the black (I agree that they would undoubtedly be able to cut costs on a merger, but the $7Billion annual savings just sounds a little pie-in-the-sky to me... those savings are ALWAYS overestimated in these types of dealings).


----------



## Staszek (Nov 13, 2006)

jpl said:


> Ok, I know I promised to stay away from this thread, but I felt compelled to respond here. First, sorry to say this, but if what you're saying is true then there is no way on earth that the government is going to allow the merger. Both companies appear to be contending that market forces are causing contractions in the market, making a merger necessary. If it were the case that the company is less in the red because of Stern, and is just recouping the initial investment dollars, then it's only a matter of time until they go into the black - in other words the problem, at least for Sirius, wouldn't be the contraction of the market - but just a miscalculation on the size of the market. In which case, I believe the government would turn down a merger request -- unless it can be shown that XM is in such dire straights that without the merger it's going belly-up. And even then it would be iffy -- if the market really is smaller than either company initially anticipated, then the argument could be made that one of the two SHOULD go out of business. Combining the two companies wouldn't necessarily, at that point, put the resulting company in the black (I agree that they would undoubtedly be able to cut costs on a merger, but the $7Billion annual savings just sounds a little pie-in-the-sky to me... those savings are ALWAYS overestimated in these types of dealings).


Oh I agree with you I really think this merger is going to have a tough time going through, thats why I stated in my earlier post I dont think we have to worry about merging of channels between XM and Sirius for quite some time now, if at all.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Sirius satellite radio said there will be no swap out. Basically, changing the circuitry at xm and sirius, will mean 70 identical channel to not be operated. The merge sound fine to me. I am a lifetime Sirius sub. and receiving xm service on sirius radio would be great. My lifetime service with Sirius is not in jeopardy, with the merger. xm radio was in trouble, and could not make it. If xm ends up morgarging xm 3, then xm is in trouble. A merger be fine with me, since xm radio is the one in trouble.. 

Air america radio is exclusive on both xm and sirius radio. With 14 million subs, xm/sirius be able to carry all exclusive sports.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Sirius satellite radio said there will be no swap out. Basically, changing the circuitry at xm and sirius, will mean 70 identical channel to not be operated. The merge sound fine to me. I am a lifetime Sirius sub. and receiving xm service on sirius radio would be great. My lifetime service with Sirius is not in jeopardy, with the merger. xm radio was in trouble, and could not make it. If xm ends up morgarging xm 3, then xm is in trouble. A merger be fine with me, since xm radio is the one in trouble..
> 
> Air america radio is exclusive on both xm and sirius radio. With 14 million subs, xm/sirius be able to carry all exclusive sports.


That seems to make the most sense to me. They may even be able to keep the two services separate, keeping both existing bases happy, although I can't imagine they would keep two sets of music channels - no sense in having two channels carrying light jazz, e.g. Undoubtedly both parties are relying on eliminating redundancies (I'm thinking all those cable channels in addition to the music channels that they carry). Which is why I have serious doubts about the amount of money that they claim that they can save over this deal.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> A merger be fine with me, since xm radio is the one in trouble..


They were both in trouble and XM has more subscribers.


----------



## Staszek (Nov 13, 2006)

ApK said:


> They were both in trouble and XM has more subscribers.


More subscribers barely for a company that started off way ahead. Yep they are both in trouble, Sirius is just slightly less in trouble lol


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Number 1. N.A.B. is apposed to a merger, and if they were in favor of it, fine.
Number 2. N.A.B. favor legislation on satellite radio, so what difference if a merger was possible. Sirius said, the worries is House rep Chip Pickering-Republican and Gene Green-Democrat supports H.R.983 Local perservation Act AND SUPPORT Copy right Modernization. A rewrite of these bills will be introduced in congress. Which means H.R. 983 has gotten 139 co-sponsor. And that's not the end off it. Goto WWW.XMRADIO.COM/GRASSROOTS and see why Sirius and xm radio are concern..

Number 3. And when it comes to advertizing on tv or hdtv, Digital audio recorders or Digital video recorders will face challenges in congress, and Since my California Senator is ready to introduce a bill in the senate, House Rep Berman will do the some. David K. Rehr of N.A.B. appreciates the support... Sure enough our investment means nothing to N.A.B. OR CONGRESS. Ellected official strongly support media.. They use local radio and hdtv for there advertising, to get re-ellected or get ellected for a governmental position. Distant networks, TIVO-DVR, AND SATELLITE RADIO OUR ENDANGER of very strict legislation, along with accountability. And since our ellected official are so important, we have to put up with tv ads. Copy right modernization has strings attached.. They get more co-sponsor, so they will do things. I think DVR service is safe, with R.V. DECLARATION, should Senator Diane Feinstein and House rep, Berman do there home work. 105,000 auto workers our being cut, and there blaming government for not prohibiting hybrid cars, like Honda's and Toyota Prius in our U.S.A.. Auto makers keep hoping for miracles. Every auto makers knows our DVR'S our set to skip..


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Staszek said:


> More subscribers barely for a company that started off way ahead. Yep they are both in trouble, Sirius is just slightly less in trouble lol


Define 'way ahead'? There is some debate on the exact date XM officially launched their service, it was slated for 9/12/01, but obviously that didn't happen. Although there were ways to get XM before this, XM didn't officially launch until 11/12/01. Sirius officially launched on 2/14/02. 94 days a part, three months is three months, but that's not 'way ahead'. Sirius has more debt, a lower stock price and not as many subscribers. Currently, to me it sounds like XM is in slightly less trouble.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

With this merge or not, there is a possibility, that Sirius and XM will raise there monthly fee's and additional receiver fee's too. $13.99 nop, $14.99 nop, $15.99 yes. We can thank N.A.B. AND R.I.A.A. for there massive attacks. They can't leave well enough alone. Royalty fee's and other ham and cheese.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> The arbitron numbers were done over satellite or will be done. Numbers indicate xm 7.6 millions subs, Sirius 6.5 millions. Hopefully, they wouldn't take our choice away. www.Transmitternews.com shows, xm radio had 45% higher numbers for year end xm numbers. Give xm two years without R.I.A.A. AND National Association of Broadcasters, and maybe without legislative action, maybe more would get satellite radio service. Los Angeles, Ca, xm service office was very busy with hundreds calling in aboard for xm and xmpops. K-MOZART 105.1 turned to country music, and enless you wanted K-MOZART, YOU WILL HAVE TO SPEND ALMOST $500 OR 600 for HD goods..
> 
> National Association of Broadcaster needed Neilson Media Research to do studies on DirecTV and Digital cable tv. This is all a cover up. If this is a cover up, then I do believe Dish Network wasn't in the study, because of the injunction by TIVO.. N.A.B. OFFICE STAFF, will not say anything.
> A internet guy was charged for suppling a video online and violates R.I.A.A. supportive copy right modernization act hr 5631.. Mondays report. The Recording Industry Association of America repersents video and audio protections act. This one guy violated the home recording act.
> ...


Am I the only one who feels he needs a Rosetta Stone to translate Push's posts?


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Am I the only one who feels he needs a Rosetta Stone to translate Push's posts?


 And Then our prices for XM OR SIRIUS satellite radio goes up. With a merger maybe $1 or $2 bucks. Without merge, prices may go up $3 bucks. I know National Association of Broadcaster does not want merge, you can bet a bunch of democrats in the U.S. House of Rep, and U.S. Senate will vote against a xm-sirius merger, since our elected officials rely on media. A merge, and the price goes up 1.


----------



## jcurrier31 (Dec 15, 2006)

How is it a monopoly again? I could turn on the radio in my car and pick up hundreds of station at any given time! I could go to BB or CC and pick up an HD radio unit and pick up many more stations. There is plenty of competition thus making no monopoly IMHO. 

Same goes if D* and E* tried to merge. I have the option to pay for cable, now TV Via my phone line, I could put up a $30 antenna and get analog and digital channels for free over the air.

Thus leaving me a clear choice on either side and eleminatiing a monopoly.

Just My opinion.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> And Then our prices for XM OR SIRIUS satellite radio goes up. With a merger maybe $1 or $2 bucks. Without merge, prices may go up $3 bucks. I know National Association of Broadcaster does not want merge, you can bet a bunch of democrats in the U.S. House of Rep, and U.S. Senate will vote against a xm-sirius merger, since our elected officials rely on media. A merge, and the price goes up 1.


Congress does not vote on mergers. they can try to influence the FCC, DoJ, or SEC but the members of congress will not vote.

As for how is thisa monopoly---the answer is obvious. It depends on what market is being defined. When the E*/D* merger was being debated the FCC clearly defined the market as sat TV and said no even though there was still cable and OT TV.

The question is will they view this asa merger of the only two satellite radio companies or a merger of two radio companies who happen to deliver by satellite. the fact that you define it one way does not mean that si the only way to look at it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> Air America is exclusive to Sirius....


So waht is on XM Channel 167?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Geronimo said:


> Congress does not vote on mergers. they can try to influence the FCC, DoJ, or SEC but the members of congress will not vote.
> 
> As for how is thisa monopoly---the answer is obvious. It depends on what market is being defined. When the E*/D* merger was being debated the FCC clearly defined the market as sat TV and said no even though there was still cable and OT TV.
> 
> The question is will they view this asa merger of the only two satellite radio companies or a merger of two radio companies who happen to deliver by satellite. the fact that you define it one way does not mean that si the only way to look at it.


Awww... you beat me to the punch  Far be it from me to pass over a chance to take a pot-shot at Congressional Democrats (just kidding, folks... kinda), but of course you're correct - it's not Congress that decides these things.

And you're also correct that it depends on how the government defines the market. I also don't buy the notion that this merger is being objected to by the recording industry (at least that's how I read one of these postings). Don't know why they would care.


----------



## jcurrier31 (Dec 15, 2006)

It is purely a shame that our Left wing libs always try to put there hands in everything us as US citizens do. I think we should just finally get rid of all types of media and just have one type of state run TV/Radio because in the long run that's whats all Dems hope for. Then it won't be long before they just tell us what to think. So much for the American Dream, I guess that would be one way to stop illegal immigration, Make our country worse then every one else's!


----------



## SWTESTER (Apr 7, 2004)

jcurrier31 said:


> Then it won't be long before they just tell us what to think. So much for the American Dream, I guess that would be one way to stop illegal immigration, Make our country worse then every one else's!


Then it won't be long before they just tell us what to think.
>>'They' [corporate media] have already done a great job on the dumbing down of America. You already have been told what to think, blame the :eek2: terrorists, blame the :eek2: Dems :nono2: , blame Osama and now blame Iran :lol: . I for one blame the party in power, which of late includes most "Dems".


----------



## jcurrier31 (Dec 15, 2006)

It just shows how sad it is that they truly believe that if they force price to go up people will actually listen to the crappy local radio stations. Nobody wants to listen to 3 songs an hour followed by 49 minutes of commercials. Oh don't forget that will be the same 3 songs the next hour. If the price gets too high people will just pop in a cd or their IPOD and let it roll. 

I also think it is funny how gullible Americans are to support a made up organization that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of the insane lefties


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Jcurrier, where have you been my entire life? 

I couldn't agree more! :up:


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

There is also the push for the revival of the "Fairness Doctrine". Many right of center talkers have stated they would go to satellite if the "Fairness Doctrine " was revived. With satellite radio out of the way there will be one less refuge for talk show hosts. We will then be "left" with Airhead America stations. The Left wants their monopoly on media sources back.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

One expression I heard one time, while listening to someone (forget who) talk about the role of government in the markets really stuck with me - Markets have no corners. Meaning, folks who try to "corner the market" are engaging in futility. The market will find a way to get around any kind of goofy regulation designed to contain it. You would have thought that the music industry would have learned this lesson already. The reason that CDs are now so much cheaper than in the past is that the music industry, in an attempt to control the market, shot themselves in the foot. Keeping prices high for CDs led to the advent of things like Napster, and other sources of digital music. In an attempt to placate the market - they started cutting the price for recorded music. But it was largely too late - now the market has changed, and the music industry is left trying to figure out how to capitalize on it.

I agree with the sentiment that, apart from talk radio, radio is a waste of the airwaves. I try to put on a music station, and am subjected to repeats of the same music, insipid comments by the DJ, and 3 times as much time spent on commercials and other interruptions as music.

Part of me almost wishes they would reinstate the fairness doctrine (as much as I detest it) - forcing commentators over to services like XM and Sirius, and would cause the collapse of traditional radio. It would serve as one heck of a wake-up call.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> Define 'way ahead'? There is some debate on the exact date XM officially launched their service, it was slated for 9/12/01, but obviously that didn't happen. Although there were ways to get XM before this, XM didn't officially launch until 11/12/01. Sirius officially launched on 2/14/02. 94 days a part, three months is three months, but that's not 'way ahead'. Sirius has more debt, a lower stock price and not as many subscribers. Currently, to me it sounds like XM is in slightly less trouble.


Sirius hasa lower per share price but ahigher market capitalization. Not all companies have the same number of shares. Per share price alone means nothing.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Geronimo said:


> Sirius hasa lower per share price but ahigher market capitalization. Not all companies have the same number of shares. Per share price alone means nothing.


Not to sound like a geek, but how do the P/E ratios compare? I'd look it up myself except:

1) I'm too darn lazy
2) You already seem to have the numbers in front of you

I have no real reason for asking the question except for general interest in the relative solvency of each company.


----------



## ecurrie (Mar 2, 2007)

jcurrier31 said:


> It just shows how sad it is that they truly believe that if they force price to go up people will actually listen to the crappy local radio stations. Nobody wants to listen to 3 songs an hour followed by 49 minutes of commercials. Oh don't forget that will be the same 3 songs the next hour. If the price gets too high people will just pop in a cd or their IPOD and let it roll.
> 
> I also think it is funny how gullible Americans are to support a made up organization that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of the insane lefties


You know, if you weren't such a racist, bigot, you would realize that these issues make great strides in leveling the playing field! If these two conglomerates merge, this may eliminate my ability to get into the satellite radio business. You are stifling my ability to start a business. The government doesn't want to finance my business, so the playing feild MUST BE EVEN!


----------



## ecurrie (Mar 2, 2007)

ecurrie said:


> You know, if you weren't such a racist, bigot, you would realize that these issues make great strides in leveling the playing field! If these two conglomerates merge, this may eliminate my ability to get into the satellite radio business. You are stifling my ability to start a business. The government doesn't want to finance my business, so the playing feild MUST BE EVEN!


At least, that's what liberal racist bigots tell us conservatives.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> With this merge or not, there is a possibility, that Sirius and XM will raise there monthly fee's and additional receiver fee's too. $13.99 nop, $14.99 nop, $15.99 yes. We can thank N.A.B. AND R.I.A.A. for there massive attacks. They can't leave well enough alone. Royalty fee's and other ham and cheese.


The stupid RIAA will sue anyone and anything. GREEDY! They sunk Napster, Broadcast.com. I hate thosee morons.


----------



## mitchelljd (Aug 16, 2006)

Nick said:


> If XM and Sirius do merge, how the hell do I keep _Howard Stern_ OFF my XM Roady?


why would you want to keep him off? if you dont want to listen to that channel. DONT

freedom of speech is vital to society. don't be a hater!


----------



## mitchelljd (Aug 16, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> The stupid RIAA will sue anyone and anything. GREEDY! They sunk Napster, Broadcast.com. I hate thosee morons.


what, you probably don't believe people need to pay for music. why buy a cd? why pay for downloads?

because artists, songwriters, producers, managers, promotion, A&R, marketing all need to make a living.

you need gas to drive your car, but you can't steal that, why is this any better.

also, napster is still around, just in a LEGAL form now.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

And what % of the cut goes to the RIAA? Artists make more on ticket sales, tshirts, et al then CDs thanks to the RIAA. All RIAA does is make everyone a pirate and I'm a proud music pirate. I use XM and Sirius to find music to steal so I can put it on my iPod. First the old Napster, the Kazaa Lite, now Limewire. I didn't pay for music back in the 90s when I recorded it off of FM radio, and I'm sure as hell not paying for it now to put it on my iPod.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

The recording industry lost their lawsuit against terrestrial radio years ago. They wanted radio stations to pay royalties to play music. The courts ruled that it was "free advertising" of the music and artist. Along came home recording, another lawsuit. Then came internet radio, one the RIAA came out on top. Internet radio has to pay to play music. Then there is the RIAA's cohorts, BMA and ASCAP and their tactics: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1993...-waiting-to-make-an-example-of-your-business/ The jukebox owner pays when they buy the cds; they pay royalties for the jukebox; they pay a percentage of the monies taken in; you pay when you drop coin to play the music; the bar/restraunt pays for having a music. ASCAP/BMI have gone after businesses for having a _radio_ playing! I realise the artist deserve to get paid, but little of what is collected gets to them.
Bottom line, it's all about the Benjamins


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

I'm moving this thread back up because I now have a vehicle with XM Radio. It is a three month trail deal. I called and talked with a Rep about pricing and she was telling me the current pricing. Then she mentioned the merger next year. She talked about it like it was a "done deal", however, it is my understanding that it hasn't yet been approved  And if XM-Sirius can merge why couldn't D and E*?
(Not that I would really want D and E* to merge).


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

The merger is not a done deal far from it and hopefully never will be. A 180 day clock has been set up to review the merger, this works out to be December 8th as the final day of judgment. The FCC, DOJ and SEC will have to approve. 

Satellite Radio and Satellite TV are similar industries, but there is some worry that without a merger one or both of the satellite radio providers will go belly up, I don't believe that for a second but there was never that same worry with Dish and DirecTV at the time of their merger hearings.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> The merger is not a done deal far from it and hopefully never will be. A 180 day clock has been set up to review the merger, this works out to be December 8th as the final day of judgment. The FCC, DOJ and SEC will have to approve.
> 
> Satellite Radio and Satellite TV are similar industries, but there is some worry that without a merger one or both of the satellite radio providers will go belly up, I don't believe that for a second but there was never that same worry with Dish and DirecTV at the time of their merger hearings.


That's what I thought that the deal hadn't been done yet at all. But she said they had just had a meeting about it before I called. So they are making plans anyway. And if a company of any kind can't make it I think they should go belly up. I think XM is the one that is going to be "bought out" so may be they are just preparing for what they think is the inevitable.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

It's supposed to be a 'merger of equals' but the last time a company I supported was supposed to have a 'merger of equals' there was nothing equal about it. Nextel & Sprint. I didn’t want that to happen either. Sirius CEO, Mel Karmazin, would assumethe CEO roll of a merged company. Yesterday (or two days ago), a 91 page document was released on the potential pricing and packaging structures, XM and Sirius are doing a lot to try to plead their case, they are getting everything planned out and will just wait for the green light, or hopefully it will all be for nothing and there will be no merger.


----------

