I think they indeed know it, but were trying to nicely say that thoise expecting it to be at a regular meeting should not assume this is the case. Check you yahoo email.

I can agree with this, but the FCC would not put a merger vote or a license transfer application on the agenda of an open public meeting. That is historically well established at this point.

I figured a firm that covers regulatory matters like this, would know this. I guess I was the one making the assumptions then… that these guys would know this. Which is why I also said it could be a simple mistake on their part.

No harm, no foul… but I still procceed cautiously.

-

I think that George is stating that “in respose” to recent reports that seemed to make a big deal out of the May 14th FCC meeting as being a platform for the merger.

Dellinger is not a financial analyst. He deals with regulators and such, and has a very good handle on how things work with them.

I further hope that the FCC doesn’t just grant it to Georgetown or any group affiliated with them — their should almost be an auction for the right to lease the bandwidth from XM/Sirius. If not, then XM/Sirius should most certainly have a say in who the group will be — because regardless of what happens, whoever leases the bandwidth will have to do so with cooperation and co-ordination from XM and Sirius. The bandwidth MUST be leased and paid for by the them — and XM/Sirius technology will obviously have to be used by that company… whether they “program” the channels directly for XM and Sirius — or they offer a seperate service that will require an XM/Sirius receiver… the deal will be complicated.

It’s still a shakedown… it will be nice if XM is able to get back the 400+ kbps from Clear Channel this summer — that they got in the arbitration agreement. That deal is just about up. I hope that XM is able to final be rid of Clear Channel for good — because that bandwidth will sure come in handy with this minority settlement.

-

I know this is going to come off sounding petty and/or unimportant — but I have a problem with the above statement. The problem I have is that the FCC has NEVER voted on a merger (of this magnatude) or a license transfer application in an open public meeting. Those monthly meetings are held for other reasons and the FCC has NEVER used them for situations like this.

The problem I have — is that when I read “research” come out from “reputable research firms” that make claims like this, it makes me question their conclusions. Could it have been a simple mistake or a bad assumption on the part of George Reed-Dellinger? Absolutely. They could still be very much dead on with this one — but it does raise a caution flag for me when I see “analysts” refer to these open meetings like this. I’ve seen several analysts do this now — perhaps its just an assumption that the FCC would use an open meeting to vote – which has been perpetuated by other analysts and media… regardless they’re all wrong.

Before anyone wants to jump on me — I will provide you with a link supporting my opinion first…

http://www.fcc.gov/osec/archiv.....e.html

I welcome anyone that can find a merger discussion that was brought up or voted on — as well as any license transfer application that was discussed or voted on — at ANY FCC open public meeting. The link above is the agenda for every meeting held in the past 4 years, plus a link to meetings even further back than that.

Perhaps it is petty — but when you see a mistake being passed on by a “reputable firm”, it makes me a bit hesitant to jump on the bandwagon.

-