Sirius Satellite Radio & XM to merge

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

Yeah but there are ads in terrestrial radio. With sat radio, you pay to not hear ads.

Only on the music channels. There are ads on the other channels (Like howard 100 and 101, pretty much the only channels I listen to).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
the merger is obvious: together, they might have enough customers to stay afloat. iirc, the technologies are incompatible, so are they going to just duplicate the content on both services?

Your post shows a significant deficit in understanding economics and competition. Try this instead:

the merger is obvious: together, they can act as a monopoly, and never have to compete for customers. iirc, the technologies are irrelevant, what matters is removing choice for the consumer, so prices can be based entirely on willingness to pay, with no regard to actual cost.

edit - changed by request

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I was listening to Bubba the Love Sponge on friday, and they were saying something about how clearchannel is pushing to the FCC to have them give up 50% of their satellite capacity for a competitor, which I think is BS. They have spent billions of dollars developing that technology, and now their competitor wants them to give some of that up for someone else to use.

If clearchannel or anyone else wants to be competitive in the satellite radio market, then they should have to build and launch their own satellites.

Clearchannel calling somebody else a monopoly? BWAHAHAHAHA.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I was listening to Bubba the Love Sponge on friday, and they were saying something about how clearchannel is pushing to the FCC to have them give up 50% of their satellite capacity for a competitor, which I think is BS. They have spent billions of dollars developing that technology, and now their competitor wants them to give some of that up for someone else to use.

If clearchannel or anyone else wants to be competitive in the satellite radio market, then they should have to build and launch their own satellites.

Clearchannel calling somebody else a monopoly? BWAHAHAHAHA.

That is pretty much what they were laughing about on that show too.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

they don't have to be perfect competitors for there to be competition. but i'd say they're more alike than, say, taco bell and a decent sit-down tex-mex joint.

 

[Illusio]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

Yeah but there are ads in terrestrial radio. With sat radio, you pay to not hear ads.

Only on the music channels. There are ads on the other channels (Like howard 100 and 101, pretty much the only channels I listen to).

Lately I've been seeing ads on the music channels on my XM radio. Kind of annoys me, since they are not supposed to be there

I'm in favor of the merger since I have XM, want the NFL and don't care about MLB. If they jacked up the rates, I'd just cancel and go back to regular radio. *shrug*

 

[Mermaidman]

Some of the channels are not XM exclusive, so those channels will have the usual airtime breaks and commercials.

 

[austin316]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

But someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy satellite radio?

It is a luxury, not a need. If XM/SIRIUS choose to now charge $50 a month since they are the only game in town, consumers will just switch to the other competitors such as subscription based music, ipods, free radio, etc....

 

[austin316]

Originally posted by: austin316

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

But someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy satellite radio?

It is a luxury, not a need. If XM/SIRIUS choose to now charge $50 a month since they are the only game in town, consumers will just switch to the other competitors such as subscription based music, ipods, free radio, etc....

this is like 2 years in the making for them to finally reach a decision, but Exxon-Mobil was okayed in a few weeks.

hmmmmmmm.........

 

[olds]

We have had XM for about two years. We have the portable one where you can move it between vehicles or use it in the house. I keep it hooked up to the HT unles we are going on a long drive.
We got SIRIUS about 2 months ago when we upgraded our Dish Network account. I probably listen to XM about 10 hours a month and SIRIUS maybe one. But that's mostly because I don't listen to radio in the house much.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Finally...

My gf's cousin works for Sirius and this has apparently been in the works for months. XM had rights to the MLB, the big reason sirius wanted the merge (well that and to knockout the competition). It also means many, many more stations and I also heard that there is no plan to increase rates...

This has been in the works for over a year.

It would have happened eventually anyway when one of the companies went out of business.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

edit: forget it

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

Yeah but there are ads in terrestrial radio. With sat radio, you pay to not hear ads.

Only on the music channels. There are ads on the other channels (Like howard 100 and 101, pretty much the only channels I listen to).

I listen to Howard 100 and 101 mostly but there are a couple music channels I flip through too.

I love Sirius!

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
I disagree that there is competition with terrestrial radio....yes to a certain degree but it's a different animal. I don't have to directly pay for terrestrial radio which in my humble opinion makes it different. There is a limited amount of competition from mp3 players but I'm not going to get baseball or football games on my ipod. It's a different animal.

I disagree with your comment.

When you're in a car (which is the primary audience for Satellite radio), you can only listen to one source of entertainment at a time, whether it be Sat. Radio, Terrestrial Radio, CD's, or MP3 players. They are all effectively competing for your ear and none can effectively be enjoyed at the same time.

Taken in pertinent part from Wiki; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly (emphasis added)

In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure monopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. [1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

IMO, the substitute good in the present case isn't Sirius vs XM, its the other media competing against satellite radio for your undivided attention while in your car. Sat Radio vs. Terrestrial Radio vs. MP3/iPod vs. CD's

The very fact that the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters - aka Terrestrial Radio) is so staunchly opposed to the merger exemplifies its place as a direct competitor to satellite radio as a whole. If they weren't a competitor and a "substitute good", why would they be so vocal against it?

As for your comment about baseball/football games, sure Sat Radio dosen't compete with an iPod in this genre, but it heavily competes with local radio stations who arguably still have a higher base of listeners.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
the merger is obvious: together, they can act as a monopoly, and never have to compete for customers. iirc, the technologies are irrelevant, what matters is removing choice for the consumer, so prices can be based entirely on willingness to pay, with no regard to actual cost.

fixed

that's pretty fucking lame.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
i like little boys

fixed

you're right, my post was highly offensive, and couldn't possibly be construed as demonstrating any understanding of the topic.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Howard speculates that only one company will survive regardless of a merger.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Howard speculates that only one company will survive regardless of a merger.

There's too many 'must haves' for paid broadcasts (particularly sports). Since the owners of this content are monopolies, and can get more money from a single buyer than two or more non-exclusive buyers, a single company solution is most likely.

This doesn't make it a 'competitive' outcome, nor a positive one for consumers, but it's the way things are most likely to go.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

you're right, my post was highly offensive, and couldn't possibly be construed as demonstrating any understanding of the topic.

speak your mind, but put your name on it, not mine.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

you're right, my post was highly offensive, and couldn't possibly be construed as demonstrating any understanding of the topic.

speak your mind, but put your name on it, not mine.

You're really going to lecture me about being appropriate after the post you made?

It was completely obvious that I changed your post to reflect a different viewpoint; I just liked the symmetry of your phrasing.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

you're right, my post was highly offensive, and couldn't possibly be construed as demonstrating any understanding of the topic.

speak your mind, but put your name on it, not mine.

You're really going to lecture me about being appropriate after the post you made?

It was completely obvious that I changed your post to reflect a different viewpoint; I just liked the symmetry of your phrasing.

you shouldn't need to be lectured. if you have some thing to say, fine, that's why we're here. but do not mis-quote me.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

you're right, my post was highly offensive, and couldn't possibly be construed as demonstrating any understanding of the topic.

speak your mind, but put your name on it, not mine.

You're really going to lecture me about being appropriate after the post you made?

It was completely obvious that I changed your post to reflect a different viewpoint; I just liked the symmetry of your phrasing.

you shouldn't need to be lectured. if you have some thing to say, fine, that's why we're here. but do not mis-quote me.

I can't believe you think you're right.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i'm letting this go. enjoy your satellite radio.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i'm letting this go. enjoy your satellite radio.

fair enough, (my) original post changed

 

[slayer202]

all the idiots posting "this is old news, been in the works for a long time" read the friggin article, jackasses

 

[ultimatebob]

Sirius got rid of Super Shuffle and replaced it with a Rolling Stones station?!? Bastards! Super Shuffle was my favorite station!

Now I'm glad that I didn't stick around for the merger! (Actually, the trees blocked my satellite reception during Summer. No merger was going to fix that.)