3 comments

• 

  eric

  2 years ago

  As those of us who live in an area served by only two broadband providers know, two competitors do not make a market. One provider, even less so.
  
  Sure, XM and Sirius compete, in a broad sense, with internet radio and terrestrial broadcast radio. Broadly speaking, CDs compete with DVDs and video games for a piece of a consumer's entertainment dollar. In a way, satellite radio competes with CDs, too. However, I don't believe it would be better for the consumer if all four major record labels merged into one. Whether you call it a monopoly or not -- in this case, the term would be misapplied -- is beside the point.
  
  TLF sometimes defaults to a doctrinaire position on anti-trust. In this case, the consumer may benefit or be hurt by such a merger. No one can predict the final outcome, but there are valid arguments to be made against the merger. Ridiculing the NAB is not an argument in favor of the merger. The representatives of the NAB are simply alternately expressing their hopes and their fears. That makes them sound inconsistent, which they are. And that, by itself, proves nothing.
  reply
• 

  Lindsey Graves

  2 years ago

  OK, can you please tell me how the merger is a bad thing? More doesn't make it better for consumers in all cases. A monopoly - market share and pricing power. XM and Sirius have raised their prices a total of once, that's right, once since they have been operating. So please stop all this monopoly talkand how it's not good for the consumer stuff. I don't know about you, but I would love to get NFL coverage and College Football games on the same service, one service. Everyone who say's this is bad for the consumer, please edcuate me and others and give us specific examples. And not "soaring prices" because even without the promised price caps, which the FCC could easily impose to make that a non-issue, if the price got too expensive, I would just drop the service as it's not a necessity commodity. Please, why are wasting time on two radio companies when food and energy continue to soar year after year? Why don't somebody do something about $3.00/gal gas instead of worrying about audio entertainment. The NAB has no merit for it's case except that two satellite providers will be reduced to one, a monopoly. So what, the one would be a better product for consumers than the two. The NAB has 230 million listeners to Satellite radio's 14 million. They are the monopoly.
  reply
• 

  Brian R.

  2 years ago

  You are correct. They would join from a duopoly to a monopoly. They would have explicit pricing powers to raise prices as high as they want.
  
  Except for one fact: They are competing against free. All of the alternatives to Satellite Radio: HD Radio, iPods, Terrestrial radio, internet radio (in areas where city/county wide WiFi is available) are all alternatives to SatRad. While none of them may be nation wide, they are all alternatives. And they are all free, minus the initial cost of equipment.
  
  How about this fact: This all powerful monopoly that you keep saying the merger will form will host a grand total of about 3% of the listening population? How about the fact that they will command a whooping 7% of sales revenue for the radio industry if placed in the same category of terrestrial radio.
  I am an XM subscriber and I cant wait for the merger to go through. But what if I am wrong? What if Mel Karmazin's diabolical scheme to charge $50 a month comes true? Simple: I cancel and switch back to either my iPod or terrestrial radio, both of which are free. Satellite Radio is not a necessity and when they raise their prices, people can and will switch to free alternatives. Why do the anti-merger people not see that?
  
  Besides, with an estimated 3-7 BILLION (thats right, with a B) in merger synergies (that means money the combined company will be able to save as a single company) they do not NEED to raise prices to make money.
  reply