-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2007/06/15/national-association-of-broadcasters-v-national-association-of-broadcasters/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
MikeRT
184 comments · 6 points
-
eee_eff
800 comments · 8 points
-
mwendy
73 comments · 2 points
-
Ryan Radia
176 comments · 5 points
-
Richard Bennett
612 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
4 days ago · 4 comments
-
Google’s Privacy Dashboard: Another Major Step Forward in User Empowerment & Transparency
3 days ago · 1 comment
-
Open Source is Not the Enemy
4 days ago · 3 comments
-
Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)
3 weeks ago · 18 comments
-
“Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language
1 week ago · 7 comments
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
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.
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.