XM / Sirius Satellite radio merger being pushed HARD now! Let's stop this crazy thing!

(as Cold Cut would say in their day...)

After KLSD went dark last Friday, on Saturday I resubscribed to Sirius Satellite radio, since I already had the equipment, etc. and so I wouldn't be without decent radio options driving here. Noticed on their web site, the person I spoke to when signing up, and on promos blasting around every few minutes that they are REALLY pushing Sirius stock holders now to send in their proxy votes to approve the XM / Sirius merger.

Now, its being made to sound like it will be "good" for the customer as they will get offered more choices, but from where I'm sitting, with each of these services already preempting certain channels at times (like their progressive talk channels) to make room for sports broadcasts periodically, I could see them "streamlining things" so that instead of having progressive talk on both services they might cut back to one between the two of them, etc. or even remove them altogether if they work like Clear Channel when they get "too big for their britches" with that monopoly power that this merger will give to them.

I wonder if it is time for a quick petition rally or other "raise awareness" campaign to Sirius and XM stockholders to have them understand what is really at stake here. We're short on time, as the promos said that they wanted these proxies mailed in to them by Tuesday (TOMORROW!).

If you want to read up on this, try and go to Sirius's talk board at:

http://www.siriusbackstage.com/forum /

or more importantly, go to this one web page that really starts to explain the concerns that many have with this merger. I've already been the victim of one monopolistic media raw deal this last week with KLSD and Clear Channel. Let's stop this one in its tracks. Then I'll feel better. Rumor has it here that the Republican controlled FCC is trying to quietly push this through now too!

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/report-doj-antitrust-chief-to-approve-merger.html

So far as have the congressional hearings.

To be honest, I'm inclined to support it. There's lot's of competition to Satellite radio, including regular radio, now HD Radio, MP3 players etc. There's no reason why these two companies shouldn't merge. You don't HAVE to have their service, you could by an MP3 player instead.

It really depends on what you want to listen to.

Our choices are being taken away from us through media consolidation. This is just another "brick in the wall" of the consolidation mess!

Very soon, both will be out of business if something doesn't change. Satellite radio is now up against free FM/AM and free HD radio. It's unfortunate this is your only option in San Diego, but it won't do you much good if it ceases to exist. Besides, what makes you think they'll drop the station if they merge? They've got 140 channels each (dups, really), and as long as there's an adequate audience... Last I checked, both were still running both RW and Lefty stations.

People can choose which service best meets their needs. And the RW and lefty stations have been depleted and now on both sides of fence are being preempted constantly by other content.

You are echoing the same argument that the MSM makes when anyone suggests trying to live up to the conditions of their broadcast licenses and keep the public informed and allowing for fairness in the airing of multiple viewpoints on issues. They are going to argue they need to consolidate and focus on entertainment instead for the same reasons (to make money).

Ultimately, if they are allowed to do so, then we will have a completely uninformed citizenry, and democracy will die.

When you run two pay services, both of which are running seriously in the red, against free service that promises better sound quality and numerous potential channel choices, how do those companies continuing to operate without cutting those services which likely don't attract as large an audience? You can say there's a huge audience, but there isn't and that is the main reason why the local stations are so often dropped.

As far as having a "completely uninformed citizenry," that would be a valid argument if Internet, cable TV (including Link, PBS, FSTV, Olbermann and Current), NPR and newspapers didn't exist. Talk radio is not the only means of communication and education. However, you should be more concerned about reinstating the fairness doctrine.

You may want to stop assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is part of your "completely uninformed citizenry."

Obviously you still have access to progressive media right here on the internets.

"Our choices are being taken away from us through media consolidation."

I agree, but not every merger is a bad one. The people fighting hardest against the merger are TERRESTIAL radio stations who see the competition (COMPETITION) from Sattelite as a threat to their market share. Terrestial radio is in serious trouble because of LOT'S of other competition from the internet, sattelite, MP3's etc. There are a LOT of choices for the consumer to get content these days.

That being said, the merger IS getting close scrutiny and if it goes through they will STILL have LOT'S of competition AND I can practically guarantee you'll still get your progressive talk and the price will probably go DOWN because they won't have to waste marketing dollars competing against EACHOTHER, but instead they would be only competing against the other mediums. Additionally, there's nothing stopping OTHER companies from putting up their own sattelites.

FYI, Sirius happens to be a pretty progressive company, and they would probably end up as the controlling entity.

NOPE! That's why for those who want to listen to it live in their car, there's no other option.

Now I could use my iPod with podcasts from the internet, which I have done in the past and might do later, but with the FM transmitter piece, it's more of a pain in the rear.

And it's not just about me, it is making programming like this easily available for everyone. Either over the air radio or next, satellite radio, are the most "available" options to radio for people in their cars. Podcasting in cars is even more complicated (and therefore less available) to people in their cars than satellite radio is.

You didn't have progressive talk in your car for a loooooong time. Now it's a necessity? Seriously, that's kind of a ridiculous argument against the merger. If they merge, you will still be able to get progressive talk in your car, and probably cheaper.

Clear Channel made its move to become a privately owned institution, making it less accountable to the public, without a set of stockholders to be accountable to. Coincidentally (or not?) they are now starting to make moves around the country to kill off progressive affiliates that they've mismanaged.

Sirius and XM merging makes them a monopoly and no longer as prone to competition from the other. That will allow them to be far more draconion about what they decide to carry and what they don't. Just like Clear Channel going after their existing progressive talk affiliates with less accountability, there's no guarantee that they won't chop off at least one and maybe both of the progressive talk channels they have between them with less competitive pressures to keep them honest.

When the mainstream media is NO LONGER an avenue for balanced information, then YES, having progressive talk as a way to get that information IS now a necessity. Whether I get it there or somewhere else is a different question. But for some of us, the drive time in our car is one of the few times of day when we can tune into the radio.

Etc. There's plenty of competition. Seriously, you think the world revolves around you being able to get progressive talk in your car? Satellite radio didn't exist until a few years ago, and you did just fine w/ out it up until now. So these companies should both continue to lose money and go bankrupt? Good idea. That way you definitely won't get your progressive talk in your car.

What makes YOU so sure you WON'T be able to get progressive talk if they merge? They offer it NOW, why would they stop? That's just silly reasoning based on nothing at all.

... than I do now. Between the government corrupting NPR and the MSM becoming more corrupt, and now *privately owned* (as of just recent events) Clear Channel starting to flex its muscles and arbitrarily removing stations in the market, satellite radio is one of the few options many people have left if they don't have access to wireless internet and a means to get radio streams from it, close by to get alternative voices.

The problem is that you can't be sure whether you WILL or WON'T get progressive radio if they merge. They decide and they don't have obligations like the Fairness Doctrine and other legislation for licenses used to hold over media companies. Sorry, I'm not trying to mandate that they don't make a profit, but when they are using limited bandwidth that is broadcast over the airwaves, etc., that is the PUBLIC's property, and the public has a right to mandate some degree of fairness. It might be being done now (with the current administration and corporate-lead congress we have now), but it could be if we spoke up enough.

Newspapers and other media outlets still were able to make a profit back in the days of the Fairness Doctrine which along with FCC compliance for broadcast licenses mandated that they did make sure to allow for part of their programming to provide a balanced set of information to us. I don't buy that things have changed so much that the media can't make money with similar restrictions in place now.

If we don't speak up now to make sure that newer technologies have balanced treatment of dissemination of information, we'll never get back an informed public.

I would challenge the notion that these companies would go bankrupt if we didn't make a requirement that they (either separate companies) or a merged company still carry sufficient balance in their programming for us. They don't have that requirement now, so I think the next best thing is to ensure there is still competition.

If the issue is that subscribers aren't attracted to satellite radio and they feel that they don't want to have to "choose" between one service and the other and want to have access to both, like I said earlier, there's other ways to do that than having them merge together. If you change the hardware that receives these signals so that they can receive both signals, then the subscriber might want to get both if they find content on both that they want, and not have to pay as much to have separate hardware for both. Then true capitalism will be at work so that they compete for what we want. Without either sets of controls (and in more parts of the media spectrum), we're ripe for more and more propaganda being spoonfed to us.

I think a lot of you folks don't see how much the merging of companies like they are doing today and the increased monopolization is hurting us, and is factoring in to why we have so much corporate control over our politicians.

The public has no say or right whatsoever to tell Sirius or XM what to do w/ their sattelites. Broadcast media is held (or should be held) to a different standard because in theory the PUBLIC owns the airwaves. The fact that you can't get progressive talk FOR FREE is a problem. Take it up w/ the FCC and your local radio stations and demand reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. That's not Sirius or XM's problem.

Your argument is akin to demanding that your local Mexican restaurant serve Italian food because you want Italian food and there's no Italian food in your area.

I understand completely how monopolies hurt the public when they monopolize a comodity that is not available anywhere else (like electricity), or monopolze something like airwaves that the PUBLIC owns. You can get the content on Satellite radio in OTHER places. There's plenty of competition, so if you don't like it, don't pay for it. No one is forcing you.

That being said, you have some vague, baseless fear that this merger will mean you can't get progressive talk in your car. It's based on nothing. As a matter of fact, all evidence suggest you will STILL be able to get progressive talk in your car after the merger. They both offer progressive talk, there's a market for it, so I'm pretty sure they will still offer it after the merger. Your fear mongering aside, this merger is no threat to anyone EXCEPT terrestial radio.

If you want to take up a cause, fight for the fairness doctrine so the PUBLIC airwaves are not monopolized. Fighting this merger is a waste of time, pointless and misguided.

... and one is defined as a "commons" that the public owns and the other doesn't. I would argue that that notion is rather arbitrary, and that the satellite air space is more recently defined by conservatively controlled communications agencies than the agencies that defined the over the airwaves station licenses and the fairness doctrine, etc. in earlier times. So I would argue that the meaning of one being "private" and the other being "public" is a rather arbitrary one (and one that could be changed in the future with a different administration and congress).

You could conceptually argue that though some folks "own" the satellites that are sent up into orbit, that there are other elements of that equation are owned by "the people" or at least other entities. First of all, the methodology of sending a satellite up into orbit now is through various government owned entities like the shuttle or Russia's spacecraft. Now the private sector is getting into launch vehicles soon too, but arguably the means to put it up there is already something the public provides to these companies.

And one might argue that the geostationary orbit area above one's country could be claimed to be owned by the country it is positioned over, or at least the commons of the world community, and not specifically owned by any one company. Therefore either the country or the world community should have some say on how that space is used. Those orbital areas aren't a limitless resource.

And if the FCC starts trying to regulate the content such as obscenity laws applying to these services to go after Howard Stern, etc., then one could argue that the basis they use to claim they have the right through the FCC to do that should also be available to be used to apply fairness standards to the same media at some point too.

And you'd still be wrong. You've typed a lot and said nothing. They own the sattelites and have no responsibility to provide the programming that YOU demand because it's not available for free elsewhere (and it should be). Seriously, your arguments are preposterous. You're fighting the wrong fight. Fight for the fairness doctrine so you can get your progressive talk for FREE on your local radio stations and in your car. Sirius and XM have no dog in your fight. They are a PRIVATE company that is NOT USING PUBLIC airwaves and have no responsibility to accede to your demands whatsoever. You don't have to buy their service. No one is forcing you. You are only "forced" to get their service because the FREE radio stations are no longer obligated by the fairness doctrine.

And you STILL have not given any reason whatsoever that should make you FEAR that they will discontinue Progressive radio should the merger go through. It's a baseless, paranoid fear w/ no evidence to support it.

That doesn't take away from the fact that they use the airwaves to transmit their signal, and there's a limited spectrum of frequency space that is available for that, and therefore they should be kept accountable for how they use these "commons".

They could own that satellite, but not EVERYONE can have a satellite in geocentric orbit around the world, no matter how much money they had, to broadcast what they wanted to. The space in the sky that the satellite sits in still is a part of the commons (either the world's or this country's). To me that makes them subject to regulation. And if you say that our government or the world has no "dog in the fight" to control what's in orbit as far as satellites go, then what's stopping a private company with their own satellite from launching spy satellites or worse, ones with particle beam weapons in geocentric orbit around us? If the government or the world of governments has no power to say what gets put there, do you see the problem with that notion now?

You still give NO reason that they WON'T take off progressive radio should the merger go through. I've already pointed out how they are already preempting on both services these channels for games they are broadcasting. It would seem quite logical that they might want to cut down on those channels they are preempting so that they can have more dedicated space for the sports programming, and that these channels might be one of them. Just like if CBS, NBC, ABC, had to shuffle programming around and were required to drop some programming to fit some new programming in, if we were back in the 70's and the news as it was wasn't a profit center, and they weren't obligated to keep it there as part of their broadcast license, guaranteed that would have probably been the first thing to go, if only profits governed their decisions.

The problem is what's profitable for them isn't necessarily what's best for society and a democratic system of government that expects to have a free press and free expression to work properly.

The Fairness Doctrine was written at the time when we only had over the air radio stations and TV stations. It was before cable TV, satellite TV and radio, the internet, and even to some extent our video machine technologies, etc. It is OLD law! I don't argue that it should be brought back literally, since it would have a lot less relevance in today's newer technology marketplace. You need something like it in spirit, but the rules would have to be different, and the scopes of what it governs would have to be different. For example, if it only covers signals that are sent out in analog fashion through the airwaves, and not digital signals, then pretty soon, when there are no longer stations that broadcast analog signals, and they are all broadcasting HD TV signals, then what happens? Do none of them have to worry about complying with a broadcast license any more? Might we also want to mandate closd captioning as part of the signal for the hearing impaired and those speaking other languages? Something worth thinking about now that the technology is there, but wasn't before when these older communications laws were written. Some may want to borrow the cell networks or internet wireless networks also to transmit radio signals to car devices. Should those not be regulated?

We have 27 years since Reagan took office and decent communications laws and regulation started to go down the toilet and serve more the corporations that owns government now rather than the people. We need to think beyond just the literal laws that are on the books, but the intent of them. It's like saying Single Payer Universal Health care shouldn't be looked at, since the laws don't support it now.

"You still give NO reason that they WON'T take off progressive..."

I don't have to. You have an irrational fear that they will stop it. They don't HAVE to carry progressive talk NOW and they do. They are not required to, yet they do. There's no reason to think they will stop as obviously they think there's a market for it, that's why they carry it now.

This campaign is your own personal vendetta based on irrational fear of losing your progressive talk in your car. Take it up w/ the government to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Right now Sirius and XM are giving you what you're paying for and there's no RATIONAL reason to think that will change should the merger go through. Seriously, your arguments are ludicrous.

For the record, the biggest lobbyists OPPOSING the merger (and whose side YOU are apparently on and arguing for) are funded by TERRESTIAL radio station owners LIKE CLEAR CHANNEL (they have a BIG dog in this fight and are fighting this merger harder than anyone). They are the very companies who REFUSE to have Progressive radio programming on their stations (Both Sirius and XM do have progressive programming). Their hope is that BOTH companies will go out of business. If that happens, then you DEFINITELY won't have progressive talk in your car.

It seems like you really didn't think out your position very thoroughly. If the merger does not go through, very likely there will be NO satellite radio and LESS choice for you. I guess you don't really care about that, apparently. I honestly have no idea about what your agenda is, but it doesn't seem like it's more choice for the consumer or really having access to Progressive radio in your car.

And one might argue that is the reason why XM has Air America now as an exclusive option.

Before Air America existed, there were many like me that bought Sirius specifically because they had a progressive talk channel and XM didn't. Then when Air America was added, XM only had one channel, and Sirius had two. There still was a sizable number of subscribers that went to Sirius because of the superior options we had. XM, in order to compete for our business, negotiated a deal with Air America so that it in effect removed a channel from Sirius. If Sirius didn't exist and it was just XM, there's no way we would have progressive talk on it today, as there wouldn't have even been pressure on XM to offer Air America initially when it was being sold to various broadcasting entities. And when Al Franken left, XM reduced its offerings some more (with less pressure from Sirius) by putting non-Air America talk show hosts like Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy on their supposed "official" Air America channel and taking Schultz off of another XM channel and using him to replace Air America's Thom Hartmann in the process of doing so, in effect reducing the availability of that sort of content with less competitive pressure to do so. When we have one entity instead of two in the satellite space, the competitive pressure to offer things reduces. We're talking Sherman anti-trust act law 101 here!

Many people can get progressive radio for free.

"When we have one entity instead of two in the satellite space, the competitive pressure to offer things reduces."

Wrong. Satellite is STILL competing against free radio, HD radio the internet, MP3 players etc. so they have every reason to keep the price as low as possible and the choice as varied as possible.

Again, you're siding w/ Clear Channel here, who wants LESS competition and NO PROGRESSIVE programming. It's amazing you don't get that.

You might be spoiled where you live into having that option, but satellite radio is the one place that everyone in the country in every locale can have access to a certain set of content. By ensuring that satellite radio is a competitive marketplace and therefore in and of itself has a healthy set of content availability, that in turn puts more pressure on the Clear Channels of the world who can't avoid then people going to satellite radio if it has what users want and they choose to keep a certain set of content out of a market (like they are doing here in San Diego).

I want "less competition" and "no progressive programming"? HUH? Now talking about someone who's making ridiculous extrapolations. How did you arrive at that?

As I said before, if the desire that's being sold is to have more choices for consumers in terms of availability of channels for customers, then the best option for consumers from my perspective would be for them to spin off a joint company (which I think they've already got a company that's been working in this fashion), that takes care of working with the radio manufacturers and the mechanics of broadcasting the signals, etc. to the hardware as a separate company from the two companies controlling the content. Then XM and Sirius as content only companies can compete as separate companies with just content as their concern (and who knows perhaps branch off into working with other "carriers" too, like HD, cell technology, internet broadcasts, etc. too. By having two separate companies controlling content distribution, then we still will likely have more content as consumers to choose from. Some consumers still might decide to get both of them and it would be easier and cheaper for them to do with one set of hardware too.

And NO CHOICES AT ALL. Get it? Clear Channel is fighting the merger so they can put these companies out of business and limit your choices and limit their competition. It's very simple. You're siding w/ Clear Channel to LIMIT CHOICE. Clear Channel is threatened by Sattelite radio so they want to put it out business.

Seriously, at this point I think you are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you have some other agenda.

Not ALL mergers are bad. Yes, monopolies in general are bad, but this merger would NOT be a monopoly in the classic sense in that the CONTENT is available through MANY other mediums. You have a very SELFISH and NARROW reason for opposing this because you claim you will not be able to get progressive talk in your car (which is specious since you have no evidence to even back that claim up, as a matter of fact, there's every reason to believe you will continue to get progressive radio from whatever entity may come out of the merger). Well, if that's your reason, you should be FOR the merger. If it fails, both companies will go out of business and you will get the opposite of what you claim you are fighting for. You will have NO progressive radio at ALL in your area, becuase sattelite radio will be gone.

... and that the ONLY way they can stay in business is to follow their recipe for a merger!

I say BS! There are two questions here that are of concern that aren't mutually exclusive of each other that need solving.

According to the companies they want to merge to stay in business. I challenge them to say WHY it is so essential that they merge to stay in business? And do they have to have one entity after merging, or can they just merge perhaps the costly items (that don't affect content competition), like I and others have said in this thread could be done. In other words if they are claiming that the costs that could be solved are those of the hardware and transmission being merged together, I think that can be solved without necessarily merging the content control of the two companies under one umbrella, which is the real problem that myself and others here are worried about. There isn't just one solution that they are proposing I would argue, and perhaps both problems (if they are separable) could be solved. It isn't just Clear Channel that's fighting this merger. It is people concerned about anti-trust laws LEGITIMATELY. There's a reason they exist, and its not to serve other companies like Clear Channel.

AT&T was broken up vertically as well as horizontally. Though its now being patched together again to recreate the monster it once was again, I would contend that it isn't just a question of having a complete horizontal merger to keep their businesses alive.

I'm assuming no such thing, but that will most likely be the end result if the merger fails.

"I think that can be solved without necessarily merging the content control of the two companies under one umbrella,..."

I think you have no clue what you're talking about. Seriously, do even know anything about the business? About corporate law and litigation? Have you studied their financial reports? Their corporate plans and structure? Are you familiar w/ all their assets? Have you reviewed their merger plan? You're just spewing bullshit without a clue, it's amazing.

"It isn't just Clear Channel that's fighting this merger."

Wrong, it pretty much is only clear channel and other terrestial radio owners. This is only getting any traction because of the money Clear Channel and others are putting behind it and because of the power they wield in Washington. You are part of a very small, very misinformed minority of people who are against this merger.

Since from your expert analysis, only people from Clear Channel are using laws not intended for what they should be used that they are abusing themselves for their selfish purposes?

Or is it that you think that the silliest thing you've heard is that companies merge together to form unhealthy monopolies. THAT is the silliest notion I've ever heard, and those that wrote the Sherman Anti-trust acts would agree with me.

You seem to think that the listening public either has NO interest or concern in this matter, or that they somehow think that monopolies are working well for them, and they are extremely happy with what's being monopolized in the media here and elsewhere.

I've already told you of programming changes where progressive talk has been pulled back on both services since the Air America "exclusive content" card was played. That to me indicates that with even less controls such as competitive pressure, that there is a very likely possibllity that more of this content reduction might happen. Don't you think the listening public deserve to hear how a merged entity will still be able to be sensitive to what the listening public wants without competitive pressure to do so?

I think you owe US an explanation, since you seem to be claiming to be an expert here, why it is absolutely necessary that the content arms of these two companies ALSO need to be merged for this financial crisis you claim that is driving this merger to be solved. Why is my contention that the delivery portion of both of these companies be merged and streamlined perhaps solving this financial problem (as well as solving flexibility of access of either service for consumers) a separate issue from merging the content distribution portions of these services a problem?

It is the merging of the content arms that decide what content is carried that is of concern to people like myself, and I see others here echo that sentiment too. I see neither regulatory nor market rules/influences that will remain after such a merger happens to feel that the diversity of content will be maintained. Mergers 101 also dictates "streamlining" of goods and services when two companies merge. Normally many people aren't worried about how people are realigned internally in a merger, as long as they still receive decent products and services that they've bought in the past from one or both of the pre-merged companies. Sometimes the consumer gets disappointed with what gets left in that. I've seen that personally in companies I've worked for as a result of mergers. When you have something I think most of us here feel is so valuable (that is universal access to media sources throughout the country without local geography limitations), that is why I feel that in this case the merger of content sources here is so important. When these "global" competitive radio options are removed and they are already being removed locally in certain markets by companies like Clear Channel, that is where the public loses the control over what is provided to them in terms of diversity of information. That is NOT a silly thing to be concerned about. If you say it is, then I think you must be a pretty young person that hasn't seen the battles for alternative channels of information that have gone on over the last few decades. I was part of one of the early battles to help provide public access channels when cable was first starting up, that is now also being threatened with the entry of the telco companies into the market seeking to do so in unregulated fashion to compete with previously owned mostly by just cable companies that were subject to regulation that allowed for these alternate information channels be mandated. Our access to content diversity is under assault in many places, and it would be wise to pay attention to it now rather than wait until later when it gets even harder to undo the damage of what's happened since 1980.

I by the way HAVE worked in a couple of companies that has made its business selling streaming music over the internet (and I'm NOT working for terrestrial stations or companies like Clear Channel in that regard), so I'm NOT stupid in this matter.

And I'm also calling you a Nazi. :sarcasm:

Way to misrepresent what I said. Now you're just getting pathetic, and long winded to boot.

Just admit you don't have a freaking clue about the subject, because it's clear you don't. You don't know anything about this merger, you don't know the details, the plans, the finances, nothing. You have a vague, paranoid, baseless fear that they are going to cancel your progressive radio if it goes through. That's it. It's really pretty ridiculous.

"...so I'm NOT stupid in this matter."

Keep repeating that. :eyes:

Why so many words, I can encapsulate you're entire point in one brief sentence: "Monopolies are evil, mmmkay".

... which probably explains your attitude here too dismissing people concerned about media diversity as "silly" and "stupid".

W/ their businesses, Einstein. That would be you. So who's the supposed expert?

I suggest you offer them your expertise since you seem to know how the SHOULD go about making their companies profitable, maybe they're hiring. :rofl:

This isn't about media diversity, this is about you whining about some vague, baseless, paranoid fear that they maybe, might, possibly, conceivably stop offering you progressieve radio in your car if they merge. This you fear mongering.

... preventing monopolies that would screw up media diversity. It is the Justice's Department's and the FCC's job to ensure that media exists as they are supposed to represent the people's interests and not companies' interests. I might expect that XM and Sirius may have very legitimate concerns about providing reasonable profitability of their companies (separate or merged), but their concern (by law) is making a profit. It should be the government's concern to make sure that they maintain diversity of media and that as a monopoly, they don't play games with what they offer customers without as much competitive pressure.

I'm tired of your rather personal attacks on my integrity and intelligence here. I've not found that from most DUers and normally haven't felt the need to set someone on ignore, but I just might make an exception here if you continue with the personal digs here. None of my posts here have been personal attacks on others, but you seem to be trying to provoke me to doing so.

I'd like to have an honest discussion on whether we can trust this merger or not to represent well what people want. I think that's what most of this board wants, not diatribes trying to denigrate me as "the messenger".

You go from "Let's stop this crazy thing!!"

To:

"I'd like to have an honest discussion on whether we can trust this merger or not...".

Heh. Honest discussion? No, now you're backpedalling. First you were fear mongering trying to STOP this merger, now you say all you want is discussion about whether we can trust this merger or not.

I call bullshit when I see it. Put me on ignore if you can't handle it.

Too bad you don't have as much democratic ideals that still providing oversight.

I do like the idea that George Soros just bought stock in both companies. If the government doesn't provide an adequate check on consolidation issues, perhaps at least one significant investor can be persuaded to help make sure they are honest.

I still don't want the back end content components "merged", which will only be "beneficial" from an investors' point of view if they start chopping out content, which limits diversity.

I can be persuaded that a merger of the other part of the company (which isn't what I was taking issue with really) can be a good thing if it reduces costs and the content control could still remain in separate hands. I don't think that's what you are advocating, or is it.

There's been more oversight of this deal than anything similar in recent history, and all for the WRONG reasons. Big money has spoken and is threatened by the merger and you're fear mongering supports them. Yeah, I know, it's easier for you now to make this into a debate over some sort of uber-issue about gov't oversight, since you're OP of "Let's stop this crazy thing!" was so obviously based on complete ignorance and fear mongering.

You are fear mongering w/ no clue whatsoever of how they plan to merge and what the end result will be. You have no clue about any details, finances involved, corporate structure, about the industry in general and about plethora of other competitive mediums involved that insure this would NOT be a monopoly. All you have is a vague, baseless fear that they will discontinue YOUR PERSONAL progressive programming.

Now why don't you go ahead and put me on ignore already because I will continue to call you on your BS and backpedalling. :eyes:

Most people aren't! And when you don't have oversight over this when most people aren't aware of the details of what goes on in these kind of deals, THAT is when you have problems where those that are trying to sneak something under the radar do damage to the rest of us!

Look, if I were fear mongering, would I have said anything about George Soros investing in these companies? I have no SIDE! I just have concerns about what the net effect of a merger will be. And in MOST cases in recent histories, media mergers have NOT helped the American public and have hurt it. I STILL feel that merging the content entities without some form of idea of how the final product will look in terms of mix of channels is dangerous territory.

People are already complaining about how MSNBC is being taken out of the basic tier whereas CNN and other news outlets are left in on COMCAST. From the comments in this article, I think there might be similar concerns about what sort of "packages" are offered with the merged entity.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21821835

Why do you have to keep just labeling what I say "backpedaling" and "BS", with NO substantive critique of what I'm actually saying. That's the way Republicans argue, not Democrats! It's like saying we're on the side of Russia because we critique the war going on in Iraq because they had vested interests earlier in keeping Saddam alive, or that if I questioned the Exxon / Mobil merger that somehow I was a tool of British Petroleum or something like that. I have absolutely NO reason to want to promote Clear Channel's agenda. In fact, I just ordered a "FCC (Fuck Clear Channel)" bumper sticker the other day. Quit your convoluted critique in that direction. Speaking of "BS"!

That's why I'm labeling it as such.

Now you're posting links about cable packages, oil mergers and talking about critiquing the Iraq war and? Pathetic:eyes:

This is not about MSNBC and cable mergers, oil companies, or the Iraq war. This is about a specific merger that you are fear mongering about and are clueless about. Your OP was about this specific merger. I gave specific reasons why this merger was nothing to fear. I (and others) gave thoughtful, substantive critique. Go back and read my original posts. You ignored the thoughtful critique, started making the conversation about mergers and monopolies and media consolidation in general (that's backpedaling, it's not about that, it's about this specific merger, which is NOT necessarily a bad one) and now you're trying to lump me in w/ Republicans ("That's the way Republicans argue, not Democrats!").

You can't handle someone calling you on your fear mongering bullshit. Too bad.

You have absolutely NO pieces of information in your posts that substantiate your claims that you know it all and the rest of us are "BSers". You'd have us believe that someone like you, who has such great command of the English language ( "Sattelite", "TERRESTIAL", "LOT'S", "EACHOTHER", "comodity", "monopolze", "Progessively"), are some great expert in this area of understanding mergers, etc.

I've tried enough to be reasonable with you while interacting with you. I should learn that's not possible with trolls. Thank you for helping me by being the first troll to be put on my ignore list... Some part of me wonders if you actually LIKE having people do that to you here. Sad!

Goodbye!

You stick your fingers in your ears, go "Nyah nyah!" and then engage spelling/typo flames. How droll. The last refuge of a clueless fear monger I guess. Buh bye, cupcake. :rofl:

to get for many progressives.

But what we're seeing is the creation of a PRAVDA... IZVESTIA kind of an operation.

And yes, I gave chosen to use my MP3, instead of satellite and in the car listening to musci...

But this consolidation is a threat to democracy... yes, it is that simple

But I don't see this particular merger as a threat. Now, if they were being gobbled up by GE, that might be different.

Not EVERY merger is a bad one or a threat to democracy.

...which means layoffs and pay cuts as the big game of musical chairs approaches its end.

Media getting bigger means they can offer some wonderful new products. But the flip side is the reduction of the number of voices in our discourse, and the gradual paupering of Americans.

I don't want another monopoly.

That doesn't mean they will drop progressive radio, as a matter of fact they almost assuredly won't do so. If satellite goes out of business, then that will be a reduction in the number VOICES and choices you have.

This would NOT be a monopoly. The content on satellite is available elsewhere, through other mediums, many of them free, like terrestrial radio.

Only a single provider of satellite radio, with no terrestrial radio market able to come near the varied offerings. Expect the diversity of satellite programming to suffer, as corporate suits eliminate what they'll call "redundancy." Expect prices to climb as suddenly there's nowhere else for satellite radio listeners to go, and expect layoffs among the merged workforce.

None of these things is good for the customer base, for the employees, or for the nation.

If the prices climb, people will cancel. I would. They have every reason to keep the price low. They have to compete against A LOT of other mediums, many of them free. And it is NOT monopoly in the classic sense. There are many other places to get the same content, and that is the definition of "competition". As long as there is competition for the content, and there would be, it is not a monopoly in the classic, meaningful sense.

"Classic sense" is meaningless, and whether or not people cancel is irrelevant. I have satellite radio in my car, and have no other way to get that content on the road.

Monopoly.

You have a radio in your car. You have a CD or tape player. So you may not get the exact programs satellite offers, so what? You didn't get them up until a few years ago either. Now that sattelite exists you have more choice, but you have to pay for it. You still get music and talk radio. Maybe not the programs you like, but who says you're entitled to that? It's not a monopoly if you can get what they offer elsewhere, and you can. When Ma Bell was a monopoly they were the ONLY company that offered phone service. Con Ed is a monopoly because I can't get electricity anywhere else. Sattelite radio is not a monopoly because I can get radio stations for free via terrestial radio and the internet.

A monopoly means NO COMPETITION. Sattelite has A LOT of competition, most of it available for free.

A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. <1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

You have a substitute for Satellite radio. Free radio. MP3 Players. Internet radio. Satellite radio would NOT be a monopoly in any meaningful sense because there would still be plenty of competition.

So you may not get the exact programs satellite offers...

I can't get anything like the variety my XM satellite radio offers, unless I switch to Sirius. Let those two merge, and there is a monopoly in the industry of satellite radio. I can't switch to another terrestrial radio provider and get more AM/FM programming. I would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to try to match XM's content via your spurious examples of CDs and mp3 players--I'm not trying to own the content; I'm trying to listen to a great variety of it--and I'd still have to do the DJing myself.

No, there is no substitute for satellite radio in my car, and the two content providers should not be allowed to combine into a monopoly.

So they shouldn't merge because you think that maybe, conceivably, possibly you might get less choice from whatever comes out of the merger? Do you really feel that you're entitled to sattelite radio? You didn't have it until a few years ago. It's not a necessity. You don't like it, don't subscribe. You're not forced to subscribe. No one owe's you a phenomenal amount of listening choice in your car. Seriously, the whining from you people is ridiculous. And you also have no clue if what you're saying is even true, they might merge and hardly anything will change in what they offer. You have no clue.

Because of sattelite radio you now have MORE choice, and even after the merger you will STILL have more choice than what you had before. If the merger doesn't go through, they will go out of business and you will be back w/ NO choice.

Are you demanding your local radio stations play the music/talk you want? If not, why not? Sattelite is a pay service, they owe you nothing. If you don't like it, don't subscribe. That's the key point. They owe you nothing and you are demanding they lose money just because of your vague, baseless fears that they MIGHT not offer you the same choice after they merge. It's preposterous.

You people against the merger are really shortsighted, selfish and narrow minded.

"...there is no substitute for satellite radio in my car,"

UNMITIGATED BULLSHIT. Sure there's a substitute. It's called terrestial radio. Or a CD player. Or an MP3 player. You just don't LIKE it as much, but there IS a substitute. That's just you being lazy and selfish and it's not sattelite radio's problem.

...and that's not required for a monopoly.

But there are more reasons than "less choice" for current customers, and they have been listed for you already. A monopoly has little incentive to innovate, and this will mean fewer voices in this particular medium just as consolidation elsewhere has created a (near) monolith. I may gain most of Sirius' programming (and I do see that as a possible bright spot), but I will lose some of that, and some of my XM choice, in the subsequent streamlining in the name of profit. Prices will increase faster, of course, with only a single provider, and I believe you are aware what will become of customer service as soon as XMIUS realizes it doesn't have to be better than anyone else. We've seen this before with other utilities as they are deregulated, and I have no interest in allowing the free-market capitalists another playground to ruin.

As far as your unmitigated name-calling, well, that pretty much ends the debate, doesn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Isn't that a little over-the-top? We're talking about a PAY satellite radio service. There are all sorts of free radio choices, TV, magazines, Internet, etc. to get information from. This is two privately owned companies competing against all these free media outlets, and they're trying to keep from going under because of all the competition from the free outlets.

You can't really claim that these two companies merging is a threat to democracy.

question... how many companies control all the popular culture in the US?

Five

How mamy of the top members of the CEO boards does that encompass?

108 or so...

How many of these folks on each other's boards? All of them

It is not just ONE thing... but a TREND

And the FCC is about to allow for even more consolidation.. so yes, it is a threat to democracy

What five companies control all of the popular culture? And what counts as popular culture?

I agree that centralized control of information is one of the favored tactics of dictators, like Chavez, or the former USSR, or China. And I want a large amount of information out in the public arena. But I don't see how merging two satellite radio companies is a threat to democracy.

They've been less successful since I don't think Dish Network is interested in it. But Rupert Murdoch/NewsCorp owned DirecTV IS interested in that, and you can bet that it's media consolidation and control, and not just "profitability" that's of interest to him.

Satellite TV services I believe ARE making money, so them going together isn't necessarily about survival. And if they did merge, you can almost bet that services like LINK TV or Free Speech TV (currently only on Dish) would likely be on the chopping block!

http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

One of the best charts out there, there are several but this one is easy to follow.

Educate yourself

And if it was only two satellite companies you'd have a point

But it is a trend

Why do you think some of us are NOT ammused that the Head of the FCC wants to make consolidation even easier?

That is an awesome chart! Thanks. I'd never seen something laid out so cleary.

Right off the top of my head, I noticed separate WB and UPN networks (they merged) and a Fox Family Channel (ABC bought that a long time ago).

as soon as GE sells NBC, as they are threatening to

gave it a chance. Honestly, there is a ton of good stuff available, depending on your tastes of course, including BBC and international broadcasting.

I cast my vote on Sirius! I can see it being good for the consumer.

...guess I'm a bad woman.

I definitely oppose the merger, but my understanding is that the FCC has largely opposed or at least discouraged this from happening. Maybe there has been some breaking news I missed.

It only makes sense from the technological standpoint (the satellites).

They both offer different programming and I find value in both companies. Besides, the competition is healthy.

Too bad their can't be another satellite company for some competition.

Can I ask what that would accomplish?

I thought there was a third SRS, but I can't recall the name, the zone of coverage or where the satellites orbit.

I noticed going through their channel lineup, that there's quite a few Canadian channels on it, which I'm guessing might be for their "Canadian" customers. Haven't tried to get them directly yet through my service, but I suspect that's what this "third service" might be. I'm hoping that the Canadian service isn't stealing more of their existing bandwidth for the U.S. service, as it already is in short supply, and if that's happening, I'm guessing that will fuel that much more of a liklihood of trimming out channels after a merger is done.

The reason they want to merge, though, is the cost of launching satellites and the inability of either company to make a profit, plus the competition between themselves to put units into new vehicles. There's a lot of money to be made from installing XM or SIRIUS units into new cars.

Sirius also wants to launch a fourth satellite into orbit at some prohibitive cost. They are already paying humungous salaries to Howard Stern and the President and CEO.

Truly, I like them both, but I think after the Howard Stern fervor dies down, XM as a business will be the stronger of the two (even though they have overpaid Oprah Winfrey for nothing).

XM carries more live events and is more flexible. They carried Live Earth and they also have a channel devoted entirely to the presidental run.

Why can't they just create a 2nd progressive channel?

they could simply create a single unit that allows the user to switch back and forth between services depending on what they are subscribing to at the time. They could then launch satellites that address both services.

They didn't pay attention to these requirements at the time and sought exclusive arrangements with different manufacturers to only carry one service or the other. As the president of NAB says, they should not be trusted when they've already violated these sorts of rules that would have made for a better marketplace, and actually would have helped such a merger anyway not inflict a lot of pain on older customers who have to ditch their old equipment when newer ones (that SHOULD have been the kind offered to begin with) become available.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/david-rehr-at-sirius/xm-merger-judiciary-hearing.html

These services were trying to be too vertical for their own good. And I would contend that's why they are in a situation of hurt now. I would argue that if you're going to propose a monopoly of this, then at least have a vertical split so that the technology can be developed, etc. independent of content, and have no hard limits as to what content can be offered through it, so that they are merely a technical gateway, and not also a content gateway. Having both is a barrier to entry to many content providers in the market and makes it easier for certain kinds of content to be artificially excluded. Had they already been separated vertically, then the issues of how to provide a unified channel spectrum in one unit could be separated from the issues of what content gets provided and what doesn't.

including the orbiting of the satellites: Sirius uses a "figure 8" pattern of several satellites simultaneously, while XM uses fixed satellites. I can understand why the companies started out with vertical strategies because they may have feared or hoped that one or the other would not be successful. Now that both companies have survived, there's no reason why they still cannot collaborate on technologies while continuing to keep the marketing of the content completely separate and competetive. It seems to me that this strategy would also be the most profitable for investors over time as the market grows.

My feeling is that there is political pressure to combine content under one organization in order to marginalize the more liberal market of Sirius, and/or to make it easier to censor or filter the content via a new, single corporate hierarchy.

I think you could see from the FCC's point of view, they wanted some degree of separation of the content availability from the technical ability to deliver it with those rules they put in place, even if it was problematic to provide a solution to market with those rules. Perhaps the rules could have been written slightly differently so that it would allow those growing companies still the ability to compete fairly against one another and maintain some ownership of their technology, but I think like you, it would seem if you could get the content separate so that it isn't "owned" by them, but that you could either get other companies the ability to "buy" space in their channel space or something similar to that (if you really wanted a flat system and were able technically to provide it), or at least have two competing entities as they are now be decoupled from the transmission technology, that still would work best for the consumer I think.

I think there's a lot of ways to skin this cat to make it work well. I'm just a little concerned that the way it's being proposed now, and the entities involved making the decisions are ultimately not going to serve us the consumer very well, especially those consumers that are looking for this content to stay informed and not just "entertained".

It seems to me that one could have that if the manufacturers of enabled radios wouldn't be just stuck on one service or the other. If more radios could transparently pick up both services, and let you choose between them, then that's the ultimate choice and also the ultimate competitive market. I believe I saw somewhere that the original documents for authorizing this technology had tried to require that all receivers be able to receive either service, but that of course hasn't been enforced or applied. There are a few units like Alpine that do such a thing, but there aren't many. If they did that, then perhaps they could do a greater combination of what they wanted, but they'd still need to compete against each other, and therefore we'd still have more decent choices of stuff that we want, and not what they want to spoon-feed to us if they were one company.

If it were set up that way, then they'd have to give another reason for the public to want such a merger, as it wouldn't be perceived to benefit the public.

Yes, the news media before with the fairness doctrine wasn't a "profit center", and didn't have to show a profit, as it was viewed as a cost of doing business and a part of these companies obligations to comply with their usage of the PUBLIC's airwaves, which is a limited resource.

Perhaps if satellite radio were allowed by the FCC to compete more on a local basis, by either using local repeater technology or cell networks to send more local or personalized streams of content as a part of their service, they'd be able to compete a lot better. There's a lot of ways to tune this.

The important thing though is that the public has a say through their representatives (who are HOPEFULLY representing them) on what obligations various media companies have to inform the public along with their ability to make profits from entertainment content, etc.

I'm not sure what the benefits/negatives are to me. Personally, I like Sirius much more than XM. So...what is actually at stake here? Maybe I only get one consolidated bill?

.

There is a very important show just on cancer that airs only on XM that would vanish if there was a merger.

How would they include all the talk shows that they have combined if they narrow those talk channels down to just two as opposed to the four they now have?

As for progressive radio, who will get cut loose, since there are only 24 hours of air time in a day? Will they have two progressive/democratic stations now?

Who should be the CEO? XM is the more liberal of the two stations. But Sirius's CEO is the more famous and commands the greater salary.

Sirius's technicals are worse than XMs in spite of Howard Stern's boasting (and I love Howard, but he doesn't know anything about the financial stability of a company). He's rich, but other than Mel Karmazin or whatever his name is, nobody else at Sirius is.

I truly don't want to lose the variety of having both stations.

Howard Stern would never allow Opie and Anthony or Ron and Fez to be on the same network with him because they are clearly competition.

Maybe I'm dead wrong, but I love having competition on Satellite Radio. It's my favorite new technology, and I want it to succeed.

Thanks for the post. I'll be doing some more research now.

.

only because I have XM in my car and would like to get some Sirius programming.

I don't think anyone's asking that up front. Right now it's a Wall Street driven effort, which I don't think is looking at the true effect of what will happen when they merge.

Many of you which would like the idea of them merging to get each others' channels might not like seeing some of them disappear altogether after the merger, and not having the option for another service to get what you lost. They of course can add or delete whatever they want and have less market forces to keep them from dropping stuff people want.

I want both the NBA (XM) and NFL (Sirius).

http://www.sirius.com/nba

http://www.sirius.com/nfl

Were you thinking NHL or MLB on XM?

Satellite radio is in a world of hurt...and has been for a long time. The billions spent on the studios, satellites and other start-up costs have never come close to be recovered and subscriber levels have never reached expectations for either service. Add to that the shrinking advertising revenues for many of the underlying companies that either provide programming or are investors and it makes the merger a necessity for any survival. But survival will come at a cost...which could mean less channels in the future.

Personally, I have no interest or need for satellite. I listen to AAR primarily on the internet now...using a wireless internet radio around the house and soon many of the wireless phone companies will be offering Internet radio on their wireless services making it as portable as conventional radio. HD Radio...that's a bust-out...sales have been anemic and the quality of the radios aren't that good.

Sorry...Cheap Channel pulled AAR in San Diego strictly cause the station wasn't making money. That's rules $1-10 in the Cheap Channel book. They were spending more money on the payrolls and support staff than they were bringing in...where sport is a quick, easy sale and there's little to no local programming or overhead. Cheap Channel has done this in other markets as well and it'll happen in others as AAR continues to underperform in ratings and have troubles generating revenues.

The reason why KLSD was failing is because it was never given a chance to succeed. It was never given proper promotion, and there's A REASON why they are doing the format switch now just when they got the signal upgrade moving through to get it above 5k watts. Only the devoted listeners would listen to a station with that kind of crappy signal. I'm really amazed how much Sirius Left talk sounds SO much better than what I'd gotten used to on KLSD. If audiences have other sports channels in the marketplace as alternatives they wouldn't be touching 1360 with crappy signal with a 10 foot pole. If KLSD had a decent signal as an Air America affiliate and had decent advertising staff and promotion, it wouldn't be losing money. Whether it was intentional or not, KLSD was being mismanaged and THAT is why it was failing, not because of its format.

Since Cheap Channel recently just got private money to buy out the corporation, you can guarantee that the KLSD effort will be repeated in many other markets where Air America affiliates are offered by them before the election. Don't have to worry about keeping stockholders happy any more. Just private ownership, who may WANT to spend extra money and lose money on a different format than progressive talk. The Carlysle Group was earlier bidding on them, which gives you the idea of what kind of investment group now owns them.

I would argue that it was underperforming BY DESIGN with the limitations it was working under, so that Cheap Channel could dump it and then have an excuse not to allow it to be offered later.

You obviously don't spend much time on the road. Internet radio is not an option for peoples' cars. So you think everyone of our ilk would just be satisfied listening to music in cars? Driving a car is the one time where many of us have the opportunity to listen to something like Air America and where it won't be interfering with something else we're doing as much.

I think KLSD is now doomed to fail...there are already two established sports station in San Diego. The KLSD signal wasn't really the problem, and Clear Channel did do some promotion when the station began but it never turned into any large ratings.

Cheap Channel's money problems are on-going...they're trying to sell off stations to stave off their growing debt. In many cases they're slahsing and burning stations...reducing overhead. That's the case with KLSD...they're saving the money on the salaries paid to Stacey Taylor and others and in its place is a cheapie syndicated show. I wouldn't be surprised if the station is probably getting a revenue sharing deal from the network (something AAR can't offer). It's all about downsizing and running things on the cheap.

Cheap Channel's problems is its largess. It's gotten too big and has more failing stations than successful ones. If they can't turn a quick profit with a station they barebones it (or try to sell it).

Progressive talk is a very hard sell. It's controversial nature keeps a lot of big money advertisers away and thus must be supported locally. Unfortunately many stations have poor sales departments...generally selling 3 or 4 stations in one clump rather than focusing on one station...and if they do sell one station, it's one that has the ratings or the highest rate card. The little stations suffer. It doesn't help that radio has seen revenues steadily decline over the past 4 years that add to the financial messes.

I spend plenty of time on the road and listen to a lot of Public Radio...I always seem to find a good public station or enjoy music or quiet while I ride. I listen to Air America, Pacifica and NovaM while working around my office. For some satellite is a good deal and I am not condemning those that choose that way to listen. My suggestion was for those who wanted a better way to listen off the internet. And within the next year many internet station WILL be available on the road with the new wireless networks.

Do you think a station airing "conservative talk" from a company owned by George Soros with lines like "Hate Radio Freaks Welcome" would attract much wingnuts to it?

When you hear ads like those from McMillin Real Estate, which is about the most right wing business around here (Corky McMillin and his family have been *notorious* in the local developer community in buying off politicians such as the previous mayor which lead partially to his downfall, and now the current one is showing his flaws too). If you are getting ads from these guys, the ad sales department ISN'T working hard enough to find advertisers that want to work with the station to see it grow and give them more business. It is working with businesses that are trying to help shut the station down.

And the problem is that many of us are being FORCED into getting satellite service or HD service. Cheap Channel's "solution" to the KLSD problem is to try and offer an HD channel instead to Air America. Air America has smartly refused. A big problem for progressive radio is that it really needs to be *available* to the masses (which right wing talk radio is) to be an effective channel of information to the masses. Forcing people to get HD to get it only helps the smaller choir of us that are already more tuned into progressive issues, not the casual "dial spinner" that might happen on to something like KLSD and hopefully be "woken up" from the MSM induced slumber they are living in.

I didn't know listening to AAR was mandatory. I'm far from a defender of Cheap Channel as I've seen too many good friends and good talents end up out of the business as this company continues to slash and burn radio stations and radio jobs across the country. Yes, they're a Repugnican company but they're also one that needs to make money. If there's money is playing hip hop and rap, they do it...if there's money in Progressive Talk, they'd have more of it. If it were a "conspiracy", they would have shut down other stations like KTLK in LA (which has done well in ratings) and is doing well financially. Right now, Cheap Channel is in a bad mess an all that matters is turning around a lot of doggies out there and if it means making $1,000 more a day with insipid sports, that's what they're doing.

I've pointed this out before and it's a chicken and egg thing...AAR has few resources to promote their network. It hasn't grown in two years and I don't see the Greens investing much in improving the network...only keeping it afloat. I suspect we'll hear about new financial troubles there...especially if the network continue to lose affiliates.

Radio no longer needs to program anything for anyone other than what makes them money. This is what Telcom '96 brought about...as large companies like Cheap Channel were able to dominate markets with little to no accountability to listeners or the communities they serve.

The size of radio audiences has been decreasing over the last few years. Some would argue that it is because it is bleeding into other areas of technology (more car mp3 players, etc. that allow more off the air listening experienceds, etc.). Some might also argue that this move to allow *unregulated* consolidation that's been happening with the current FCC and anti-trust regulators (or lack thereof), has allowed companies like Clear Channel to take away a lot of the radio audience that aren't part of the "mass audience" that they are targeting. When you swallow up many smaller more narrowly targetted radio stations in an area and then try to change them to "mass audience" stations, you might let some stations "increase" their draw, but overall you reduce the number of listeners in a given community when you take away what they've been used to listening too. This isn't just progressive talk, but other fringe stations such as classical music, jazz stations, etc.

The idea that we should only allow for radio that "makes money" is why the media is in the mess it is in now, and why we as progressives have SUCH a difficult time in getting the word out of what we know is a mess in our government to the masses. I think that's the biggest difference between now and the 70's when Nixon was impeached. Back then, you couldn't AVOID the Watergate hearings in the afternoons if you wanted to watch TV, and didn't have much else to distract yourself with (videos, video games, etc. wern't around then). Now its' even becoming more difficult for those who DO want access to this information to even find it on the spectrum where they are searching, let alone just happening onto it.

This is about having proper regulations that are analagous to what the Fairness Doctrine gave us back before 1980. Now I will be the first to say that you couldn't just restore the Fairness Doctrine as it was written before and have it work in today's society where they technology and media availability are so different from what they were then. But the same legal strategies/philosophies that brought us the Fairness Doctrine then need to happen again to give us more responsible regulative rules now to allow for a free press in today's environment. You need to make them fair, so that complying businesses can comply with them and still make a profit. If done properly, it will go a long way towards making sure that minority voices and hopefully more objective voices not bound by "profit motives" are able to speak in these various domains (over the air TV and radio, cable TV, satellite TV and radio.

The key is to restore local ownership to the public airwaves. It's revisiting and repealing certain segments of Telcom '96...reducing the number of stations a company can own in a market, restoring the 3-year rule against radio station trafficking, reducing the license renewal period from 7 to 3 years (where it was), giving local ownership perference in obtaining licenses and making license challenges shorter and less expensive.

I worked as a Program Director of a talk station in the 80's...the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with our talk shows...they were considered "Entertainment"...the FD only pertained to Public Affairs shows and the rates and availability of political advertising on the station. We were more concerned with a license challenge from someone going through our public file than a "fine" from the FEC. The problem is far deeper...it involves who controls the licenses and how the large corporates have turned broadcasting (television included) into their private plantation...all but squashing any competition and purposely keeping property/license values high to keep their own equity from crashing and keeping other competitors out.

Revenues have dropped for many of the reasons you state...also that there are 3 times as many stations on the air today than there were 15 years ago. Some towns that barely had one or two stations in the 80s now have a dozen. Combine that with the decline of the "mas and pas"...the small businesses that used to be the mainstay of radio. Walmart perfers network advertising over local.

There are many alternatives available to "fixing" radio and building toward its future. HD Radio won't be it (reception on those radios are poor...unless you live in a strong signal area, you'll have a lot of problems hearing the HD-2 signal...why AAR passed). Public radio has been a very valuable and overlooked resource. Pacifica and many community stations have stood strong on limited financing bringing unique information and programming. Radio is in suspended animation. I've studied this medium closely and have never seen it as depressed as it is today. It's gonna take a little longer for these large conglomerates to collapse under their own debt and largess...then change will come.

Cheers...

I think I know what you are saying. If there were other options (such as local radio stations) that weren't also being plagued by the problems of consolidation (ala Clear Channel), then they would serve to keep the satellite services honest too. We are feeling the brunt of that here in San Diego with Clear Channel's taking away of KLSD counter to a sizable segment of the community's interests. If we still had KLSD, there would be less local concern about what happened with XM / Sirius merger. I think we here in San Diego are seeing and feeling what will start happening in many other communities soon when a now private Clear Channel conglomerate is more aggressive in doing what it wants in terms of content area shut downs. That's why I feel the need to speak up at this point, where I'm sure some of the rest here aren't as concerned.

I see both sectors having issues of not being regulated enough. I guess the way I see it, if you are trying to fight a Republican controlled administration and FCC on this, you can have more effect in terms of peoples' options if you try to make sure that the satellite radio space is an even playing field, so that it is an option for EVERYONE in the country, not just in areas where you might solve some of these local access issues with local radio stations (if you choose to fight instead the public airwave access a market at a time). So part of what I'm suggesting in fighting this drive towards a monopoly here is a strategic concern of getting balanced access.

If and when the local airwaves were to become a more viable means to have other content options available as the communities call for them, then the problems by this sort of consolidation would be of less concern. But our laws now as well as those implementing them aren't good enough for us to trust that the proper balance will exist.

It is rather likely that without the merger one or the other will simply fold. The argument that the merger would constitute an illegal monopoly is specious. A monopoly of exactly what? Something like 90% of subscribers are listening in their cars, where they clearly have a choice of broadcast radio and a plethora of physical media devices, all providing vehicle audio content. There is no particular competition for the delivery systems run separately by XM and Sirius as each has its own proprietary system. The merger might adversely affect subscription costs - except that once again given that the consumer has a broad range of choices for content delivery - that hardly seems likely. What it would do is reduce the overhead for delivering that media content by combining the subscriber bases and over time eliminating one of the two delivery systems.

Usually I'm against corporate mergers.

But this case is different to me because
a) the two companies are both losing money
b) I would personally like to know that if I ever get satellite radio, I will have all the channels I want. I don't want have to choose between access to Howard Stern and access to the satellite version of AAR.

Many companies lose money for years before they are successful. satellite radio is still pretty new. Cable TV wasn't profitable when it was new.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses in programming.

Both are in financial trouble. I'd rather have one than none.

This is one "monopoly" that I'm in favor of.

If it goes bad for subscribers, we stop subscribing.

We have our iPods and iPhones too.

ownership of terrestrial stations, actually, not this little ol' thing.

This is the only nationwide (multinational since it also includes Canada) broadcast medium, I know of, that is not subject to FCC censorship. Merging into a single corporate entity could be a very serious (no pun intended) blow to the liberty they now enjoy.

I used to subscribe to XM, but after continuous price increases and the removal of several stations that I listened to I was out.

Then came the joyful experience of trying to cancel my account.

I was prepared with the stonewall I received, and ended up canceling the credit card they used for the monthly subscription fee.

I've heard trying to cancel XM is worse than trying to cancel AOL.

Get a grip. You're acting like this is life or death here or the future of the democracy at stake. It's NOT. It's just radio.