![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearUnless the FTC, SEC, FCC, or DOJ get in the way, Sirius and XMRadio will merge into a single entity.
The Feds have gone against this before, but that was in terms of one acquiring the other, which they insist is not what they're proposing here.
The Feds were also against a merger of Dish & DirectTV a few years back. One of the problems with how the Feds look at it is that they see the market in question in isolation, not in relation to its ability to compete with similar operations. In this Dish/DTV case, they fought it on the assumption that the monopoly of one sat tv vendor would be bad. The reality is that neither company sees each other as competition so much as they are in competition with the local cable companies. Having to compete with each other for prices and services hurts their ability to keep up with the cable monopoly (and by extension, the degree to which the cable companies are adding services to compete with the phone companies trying to get into the entertainment biz).
So too, sat radio. XM and Sirius are in competition with each other, no doubt, but they're also in competition with ground-based systems, from traditional radio to internet radio (granted, that won't work in a car), to the new HD radio. To maintain their independence from the ClearChannel monoglot, they have to be able to remain competitive with them. Hard to do when they are based on a monthly fee and HD is "free" (as HD is often supported by commercials, just like traditional radio). Their strongest advantage is that being subscription-based, they can get away without censorship (not that the FCC doesn't want to get greedy and regulate free speech there as well, but they haven't convinced congress of that yet).
Doesn't mean I'm not concerned with the eventual changes in the channel line-ups, nor with the idea that to support the possible 300 channels that would result if all channels stayed on both systems, i'd have to get brand new radios. then there's the question of what stations would survive the relay that DirectTV does with XM's channels.
In short, its' a lot of change and a lot of uncertainty, and while "Wall Street" may like the idea, given that they look only at the money, the customer base of BOTH systems (well, except those fans of Howard Stern, who know his show will survive) will be very nervous waiting to find out if their fav DJ/channel/show survives the merger.
In addition, this merger does nothing to deter their real common "enemy", the record labels and publishing houses that want to constantly argue with them for higher royalty rates and stronger DRM protections for their new devices that allow for recording streams digitally.
The Feds have gone against this before, but that was in terms of one acquiring the other, which they insist is not what they're proposing here.
The Feds were also against a merger of Dish & DirectTV a few years back. One of the problems with how the Feds look at it is that they see the market in question in isolation, not in relation to its ability to compete with similar operations. In this Dish/DTV case, they fought it on the assumption that the monopoly of one sat tv vendor would be bad. The reality is that neither company sees each other as competition so much as they are in competition with the local cable companies. Having to compete with each other for prices and services hurts their ability to keep up with the cable monopoly (and by extension, the degree to which the cable companies are adding services to compete with the phone companies trying to get into the entertainment biz).
So too, sat radio. XM and Sirius are in competition with each other, no doubt, but they're also in competition with ground-based systems, from traditional radio to internet radio (granted, that won't work in a car), to the new HD radio. To maintain their independence from the ClearChannel monoglot, they have to be able to remain competitive with them. Hard to do when they are based on a monthly fee and HD is "free" (as HD is often supported by commercials, just like traditional radio). Their strongest advantage is that being subscription-based, they can get away without censorship (not that the FCC doesn't want to get greedy and regulate free speech there as well, but they haven't convinced congress of that yet).
Doesn't mean I'm not concerned with the eventual changes in the channel line-ups, nor with the idea that to support the possible 300 channels that would result if all channels stayed on both systems, i'd have to get brand new radios. then there's the question of what stations would survive the relay that DirectTV does with XM's channels.
In short, its' a lot of change and a lot of uncertainty, and while "Wall Street" may like the idea, given that they look only at the money, the customer base of BOTH systems (well, except those fans of Howard Stern, who know his show will survive) will be very nervous waiting to find out if their fav DJ/channel/show survives the merger.
In addition, this merger does nothing to deter their real common "enemy", the record labels and publishing houses that want to constantly argue with them for higher royalty rates and stronger DRM protections for their new devices that allow for recording streams digitally.
