XM + Sirius Merging

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Yes, it IS a monopoly... satelite radio is a separate thing than local. If you merged the satellite/cable companies into one, are you saying it couldn't be a monopoly simply b/c you could get over the air tv?

I'm not sure of your analogy--isn't there only one satellite TV provider that resulted from a merger? Why was that allowed?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
Yes, it IS a monopoly... satelite radio is a separate thing than local. If you merged the satellite/cable companies into one, are you saying it couldn't be a monopoly simply b/c you could get over the air tv?

This isn't like satellite merging with cable. This is like Dish merging with DirecTV. If that happened I *still* wouldn't consider it a monopoly because you have cable available as well as OTA signals.

If these two merge, you still have the readily available (and free) local radio. Satellite radio is 100% elective and is nothing more than a luxury item. You don't need to have it to listen to music.

 

[jdoggg12]

NM... you're right... there's NO way that by being the only nationwide provider of radio would give incentive to act like a typical monopoly. My bad






/sarcasm

 

[SuperNaruto]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/WillSiriusMergeWithXM.aspx

 

[jdoggg12]

BTW... if its considered a duopoly... what does a merger leave you with?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
NM... you're right... there's NO way that by being the only nationwide provider of radio would give incentive to act like a typical monopoly. My bad

/sarcasm

You aren't getting the point. It is a non-essential service. There are free alternatives that work in just about any car manufactured in the last 50 years.

If it was an economically viable business, then you would have others jumping into the industry. XM and Sirius have bled money since they day they launched. 5 years in business and they still have negative cash flow. What company wants to take on that headache?

If they don't merge there might not be ANY satellite radio. What do you call that? A noopololy?

 

[FoBoT]

do the satellite TV providers make money? dish/directTV ?

if not, then they should all merge, XM and siruis and dish and directTV all in one big no money making company, then maybe they could make money

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
do the satellite TV providers make money? dish/directTV ?

if not, then they should all merge, XM and siruis and dish and directTV all in one big no money making company, then maybe they could make money

Both Dish and Direct have positive cash flow. A new content provider tried to launch a few years back (Voom) and failed within a year. It's content was purchased and now operates under Dish.

 

[Aimster]

why r people complaining? more stations same price.

if they up the price they r owned.

 

[jdoggg12]

So what if it isn't an essential service. It is satellite radio, it IS different than radio and is offering things radio can/does not. There are tons of monopolies in non-essential industries.

Simply b/c there is an alternative to satelite radio doesn't mean that it wont be a monopoly. They will have a monopoly on satellite radio which is substantially different than local radio. Wik up monopoly and google it... i was a business major what a minor in econ. It will be a monopoly and their business WILL change accordinly.

 

[Sensai]

quick! everyone buy tons of stock!!

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
So what if it isn't an essential service. It is satellite radio, it IS different than radio and is offering things radio can/does not. There are tons of monopolies in non-essential industries.

Simply b/c there is an alternative to satelite radio doesn't mean that it wont be a monopoly. They will have a monopoly on satellite radio which is substantially different than local radio. Wik up monopoly and google it... i was a business major what a minor in econ. It will be a monopoly and their business WILL change accordinly.

So if it came down to having a monopoly on a non-essential service, or not having that service at all, which one is better for the consumer?

(edit)

Or if the merger is denied and Sirius goes tits up leaving only XM, is that any better for the consumer?

 

[jdoggg12]

I wasn't arguing whether its better for the consumer, i was stating that it would be a monopoly. Not all monopolies are a bad thing, i just think that IF this does go through, then the benefits of having two competing players will go away.

Likely changes would be (due to no longer needing competitive advantage) :

substantial decrease in commercial free stations
decrease in variety
increase in federal involvement and regulation (possible tax implications)

There could be some advantages too. But like you said, this is a luxury good. If they can't survive, thats their problem.

 

[vi edit]

Ah, I read into your posts as thinking that it was a bad thing for consumers soley based on the monopoly aspect.

I guess I really don't put much concern into that simply because it is non-essential. You have the option of voting with your wallet. If they do merge and change their format, or if one goes under and the survivor changes it's format, you still can just cancel your subscription. Enough people get fed up with too many commercials or a lack of stations and they'll just go back to their plain old free radio like they have the last 1/2 a century. Or just use their MP3/CD players more often. And then that satellite providor either has to face the music and change their ways, or close their doors.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: Unheard
Please NO! Lets keep Sirius free of XM.

confirmed. are those O&A douchebags still on XM?

 

[shortspanishguy]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: Unheard
Please NO! Lets keep Sirius free of XM.

confirmed. are those O&A douchebags still on XM?

yeah but I think they are on Terrestrial as well. Why would I pay for content when I can get it for free?

 

[TheNinja]

Yes, everyone please buy SIRI stock so that mine goes up

I've been waiting on this merger and watching my stock go down recently. This has really helped. We'll see if anything becomes of it though.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Ah, I read into your posts as thinking that it was a bad thing for consumers soley based on the monopoly aspect.

I guess I really don't put much concern into that simply because it is non-essential. You have the option of voting with your wallet. If they do merge and change their format, or if one goes under and the survivor changes it's format, you still can just cancel your subscription. Enough people get fed up with too many commercials or a lack of stations and they'll just go back to their plain old free radio like they have the last 1/2 a century. Or just use their MP3/CD players more often. And then that satellite providor either has to face the music and change their ways, or close their doors.

Good point... the problem is that too many people will be apathetic to the change. I would love to get XM/Sirius... but I just haven't been able to justify the expense just yet. I have friends with both, and either one would work but if they go to commercial filled music... I'd be pissed if i was locked into a contract for a service i went into with different expectations. Thats my beef with it.

 

[BDawg]

I hope it doesn't mean the XM channels will get craptacular like the Sirius channels. Siriusly... if I want to hear the same thing over and over again, I'll go back to terrestrial.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Aimster
why r people complaining? more stations same price.

if they up the price they r owned.

If it was only that easy. Remember, Cable TV has "competition" from terrestrial broadcasts and satellite TV as well, but that doesn't stop them from hiking up their fees by 10% every year.

Without any price competition from other Satellite radio providers, they'll basically be able charge whatever they want. Folks like truckers and Howard Stern fans who have come to depend on satellite radio will have to pay up or lose out.

My hunch is that they'll raise their prices to $30 a month within 3 years of the merger and add commercials to most of the music stations even quicker than that.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Aimster
why r people complaining? more stations same price.

if they up the price they r owned.

If it was only that easy. Remember, Cable TV has "competition" from terrestrial broadcasts and satellite TV as well, but that doesn't stop them from hiking up their fees by 10% every year.

Without any price competition from other Satellite radio providers, they'll basically be able charge whatever they want. Folks like truckers and Howard Stern fans who have come to depend on satellite radio will have to pay up or lose out.

My hunch is that they'll raise their prices to $30 a month within 3 years of the merger and add commercials to most of the music stations even quicker than that.

QFT

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Aimster
why r people complaining? more stations same price.

if they up the price they r owned.

If it was only that easy. Remember, Cable TV has "competition" from terrestrial broadcasts and satellite TV as well, but that doesn't stop them from hiking up their fees by 10% every year.

Without any price competition from other Satellite radio providers, they'll basically be able charge whatever they want. Folks like truckers and Howard Stern fans who have come to depend on satellite radio will have to pay up or lose out.

My hunch is that they'll raise their prices to $30 a month within 3 years of the merger and add commercials to most of the music stations even quicker than that.

And you can either pay it and give up your right to bitch, or vote with your wallet and cancel your service.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Aimster
why r people complaining? more stations same price.

if they up the price they r owned.

If it was only that easy. Remember, Cable TV has "competition" from terrestrial broadcasts and satellite TV as well, but that doesn't stop them from hiking up their fees by 10% every year.

Without any price competition from other Satellite radio providers, they'll basically be able charge whatever they want. Folks like truckers and Howard Stern fans who have come to depend on satellite radio will have to pay up or lose out.

My hunch is that they'll raise their prices to $30 a month within 3 years of the merger and add commercials to most of the music stations even quicker than that.

And I will be gone. It will be MP3's and CD's for me.

 

[Mellman]

ugh this would be awful....us consumers WANT them to compete!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Aimster
why r people complaining? more stations same price.

if they up the price they r owned.

If it was only that easy. Remember, Cable TV has "competition" from terrestrial broadcasts and satellite TV as well, but that doesn't stop them from hiking up their fees by 10% every year.

Without any price competition from other Satellite radio providers, they'll basically be able charge whatever they want. Folks like truckers and Howard Stern fans who have come to depend on satellite radio will have to pay up or lose out.

My hunch is that they'll raise their prices to $30 a month within 3 years of the merger and add commercials to most of the music stations even quicker than that.

There's nothing XM could add to Sirius to make it worth more than I'm paying for Sirius now.