C3SR Demands Hearing With FCC
C3SR has demanded a hearing with the FCC regarding the proposed merger of Sirius and XM. In their filing they charge Sirius and XM with a "lack of candor" with regard to an interoperable radio device.
Candor?
Exactly how much candor has C3SR had?
From what information is available, C3SR funded by the National Association of Broadcasters, and the founders have ties to the NAB.
Here is what C3SR Claims:
"Through the participation and support of subscribers and volunteers, C3SR -the only consumer group in existence today solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of satellite radio subscribers- is committed to opposing the creation of a monopoly in satellite radio, and ensure continued consumer choice and competition."
1. As a subscriber I have never supported C3SR, and have never had contact with anyone who has. In publishing this site, I come in contact with MANY subscribers. A subscriber that is a C3SR supporter may be harder to find than Bin Laden!!!
2. Support of volunteers? Exactly how many volunteers would that be? Doe the NAB count as a volunteer? It has been well documanted that the NAB finances a great majority of what C3SR does.
3. C3SR is the ONLY consumer group in existence dedicated solely to advocating on behalf of subscribers? Give me a break. I have asked time and time again for C3SR to step up to the plate and show their "membership" I have stated many times that in order to advocate for a group, you must understand that group. Subscribers WANT THE MERGER. If C3SR were advocating on behalf of subscribers, they would not be taking the stance they are. They are not doing anything for the benefit of subscribers. They are doing what appears to be the bidding of the NAB.
4. Wouldn't an organization that is advocating on behalf of subscribers be taking a stance on a proposal such as what Georgetown Partners has made? What about the Public Knowledge proposal? Media Access Project? Ibiquity? How can they be "advocating" if they are not even addressing the issues that surround the merger discussion?
5. Wouldn't an organization that claims to be an advocate of subscribers conduct some sort of research on what those subscribers want? C3SR HAS NEVER TAKEN ANY STEP IN SEEING THE SUBSCRIBERS OPINION.
6. Why does C3SR censor opposing views on their website? I have had literally dozens of people tell me that their comments are not published. It seems that only comments critical of the merger, or of either company individually get published. As of this writing C3SR has had a total of 7 posts on their blog, and have only published 4 comments. This can mean that C3SR is irrelevant, and it could also mean that they simply want only certain types of comments. If only certain types of comments are desired, then one can clearly see that C3SR must indeed be irrelevant. In fact, I would like every reader to post a comment on the C3SR blog, and then post the identical comment here on this post referencing that you tried to post this on C3SR. Lets see if they are paying attention. Will they publish the comments? Of course, I run the risk of showing myself as irrelevant if no one participates, but.....I am willing to do just that.
So while the interoperable device has had a place in SDARS history, and there have been many opinions surrounding the issue, it boils down to this. Sirius and XM have filed with the FCC that they complied with the interoperable mandate. The FCC has not said one way or the other whether this is indeed the case. The issue is with the FCC. It is up to the FCC to decide whether or not the companies have complied. My opinion, your opinion, Sirius' opinion, XM's opinion and C3SR's opinion do not matter. It is the FCC's opinion that matters. Sirius and XM claim to have complied, and the FCC has not said anything one way or the other. Until such time that the FCC makes a statement one way or the other, the point is virtually moot. The record has shown that the number of subscribers that have both services is not very large, and it goes without saying that a great deal of those that have both are in a situation where one family member has a car with Sirius, while the other has XM. Thus they are paying $26 per month instead of $20 (family plan). If an interoperable device were brought to market and you had to buy both services with it, how many would actually subscribe? Realistically.....not many. An interoperable device that let's you choose 1 service would have more takers, but switching between services would be something that simply does not happen. People get exposed to one service or the other, they make their choice, and they stick with it. Plain and simple.
So, where is the lack of Candor? Does C3SR have candor? In my opinion they do not. They have never really made an effort for subscribers. Instead, their objective seems to be whatever the National Association of Broadcasters wants. In other words, they are in my opinion a "PUPPET ORGANIZATION". Notice that neither C3SR nor the NAB have ever commented on some of the various proposals that have been presented to the FCC.
TEST THE CANDOR OF C3SR - TRY TO POST A COMMENT ON THE C3SR BLOG, AND THEN ALSO POST IT HERE. Spread the word, and let's make this interesting!!
Position - Long Sirius, Long XM, Believes C3SR is a puppet organization
This is the comment I posted under the “Why Subscribers Will Lose” article:
I for one am a subscriber who feels that subscribers will WIN when the FCC approves the merger. A merged XM/Sirius will offer more programming choices and a la carte channel packages. Both of those are clearly better for consumers.
It said that moderator approval is turned on…so “they” will have to approve my post.
Submitted at 12:58am 05/28/2008
Don’t purport to represent me. I am a subscriber who strongly believes in this merger. It is in the best interest of radio for this to occur. A merged company has promised Ala Carte, lower pricing and more of a selection. A merged company increases compeition to terrestrial radio and forces them to “raise the bar”. Explain to me how this is not in the “public interest” or interests of subscribers??
I would really like to see a merger as I think it provides benefits to the public and every subscriber in the sense that it offers more programming or less programming at attractive rates.
It gives me the opportunity to listen to what I want.
Also….”Why does C3SR sensor opposing views on their website?”
should read “Why does C3SR censor opposing views on their website”
Why does the FCC entertain these various branches of the NAB? I thought that the NAB is only allowed to be represented to the FCC as one organization.
Probably wasting your time. C3SR is clearly a sham organization. Moderators even says they review everything before approval. It probably would be best not to even give them any recognition or publicity…
I did submit a post…
It looks to me like you are indeed a puppet organization. I see no negative comments even though most subscribers are in favor of the merger including myself. You do NOT represent me!
How do you sleep at night? Political scum…
THANK YOU for this!!
I tried posting a comment on c3sr and it was censored.
I tried to send then feedback and they make you register and your comments are limited to 255 chars. also you find out the hard way… it rejects your submission and bounces you back to an empty form which you have to fill out all over again.
C3SR is a total sham!!!
I posted my opinion and received the message,
“Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.”
I doubt my comment will meet the “blog owner approval.”
This is a copy of my post:
When the SDARS licenses were issued in 1997 it stated they had to
develop an interoperable radio. Where does it state the companies had
to bring these radios to the market? Who would pay all of the money to
subsidize these radios in order to make them affordable to consumers
when neither company could be guaranteed they would have a new
subscriber?
Sirius and XM did not violate a condition of their licenses just
because they did not bring interoperable radios to the market. They
developed an interoperable radio. It is sitting on Mel Karmazin’s
desk. This is all the license stated they had to do. So the argument
that the companies should not be allowed to merge because they did not
bring interoperable radios to market is nonsense.
If the companies had been able to some how begin broadcasting in 1997,
immediately after the licenses were issued, it is safe to assume that
they would have captured more than the 3% to 4% of the market share
they have now. I could not imagine ten years ago satellite radio
coming to the market and the two companies not capturing a large share
of it. So yes, in 1997 these two companies merging would have been a
monopoly. That was the whole point of the clause preventing the two
companies from merging. No one could have imagined that in a few years
Apple Inc. was about to change the audio entertainment industry
forever and the revolution that would follow.
In regards to Sirius and XM’s current market share, what do you think
would happen if they raised subscription prices? They certainly would
not gain market share because their prices went up. Even at current
subscription prices they only have 3% to 4% market share. If Sirius
and XM merging creates a monopoly, where are the other 96% to 97% of
the market getting their audio entertainment? Or do they just sit
their in complete silence?
For those of you who believe this merger creates a monopoly, you are
living in the past.
Tyler – I just posted on the C3SR Website under the article “Why approve the merger?” See my post below:
C3SR – YOU DO NOT REPRSENT THE SUBSCRIBERS!!!!!!!! I as a subscriber to Sirius would like the option of tiered pricing as well as access to the content of XM, without having to purchase both services. You are nothing more than a puppet for the NAB. Get lost. You are a waste of time and space.
Martin is a puppet. He needs to get off his lazy self seving ass & make a decision about this merger. He is doing what his office is suppose to be protecting against. There are a lot of behind the scene forces working to hurt Sat Rad. Can you say NAB???? Kevin Martin you should be ashamed of yourself for letting this thing get so far.
With all this talk about an interoperable radios I have to ask then what is the radio below?
The first siri/xm HD Radio RADIO:(that nobody wanted)
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hom.....254920.php
I just wanted to state the obvious:
If they are demanding a meeting publicly, it could only be for one reason; The FCC won’t give them one…
Just emailed psoted on the C3SR blog, let’s see if it gets posted:
I don’t believe the subscibers will lose. I’ve seen the proposal of packages SIRI submitted to the FCC and would be very willing to pay the full amount for nearly 300 stations including NFL, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, etc… I am certain the majority of truckers and others who are on the road more than an hour a day would be glad to pay the same. Satellite radio is God’s gift to the road warrior and the more selection the better. I don’t believe C3SR is on our side as consumers. I personally hate commercials and having to change channels every 30 minutes.
Here’s what I posted:
Can we please get some up-to-date information on here? Everything seems to be written by one source that is against the merger. What about those of us who believe that the merger will be good?
I personally would benefit from being able to have my Sirius lineup plus baseball at a much lower cost than subscribing to both services.
here’s a dual operable radio that has been out since 2003…I don’t think they sold a single one…
they got their meeting and are demanding huge fines and a hearing before the merger is approved….