What last evening was simply an opinion of this writer has now turned into living proof that C3SR lacks candor. And it was all the doing of C3SR themselves!! Last evening we published an article titled C3SR Demands Hearing With FCC. In that article we challenged the candor and in fact the mission statement of C3SR. We encouraged readers to post their comments on any of the seven posts that the organization has published in the last 16 months. Several readers during the course of the merger had expressed to me that C3SR would censor any comment that was pro-merger.

Well, by mid morning today C3SR has removed any link to their blog from their website. The removal of the link to the blog could have been simple coincidence, but as it turns out, it was a direct attempt to silence those that would express their merger opinions.

With the link to their blog removed, I published a second article titled C3SR Removes Blog Link From Landing Page. In that article I pointed to a link that would still enable readers to get to the C3SR Blog, so that they could submit their merger comments. Within an hour C3SR shut down their blog altogether!!!

Now, here is the position this alleged subscriber advocate group has put themselves in:

1. They have by their actions directly indicated that they do not want to receive opinions from satellite radio subscribers.

2. They have removed their blog from access by any subscriber who may or may not share their anti-merger position.

3. Most importantly, they have acknowledged that they read Sirius Buzz. This is important because now they are about to be put on a hot seat.

C3SR - Subscribers and merger watchers have some questions for you. Do you have the courage and candor to answer them? The comment section of this post is available for your answers, and readers are eager to see what you say:

1. Please tell us what funding C3SR has received from individual subscribers (not tied to any company or organization) through this date.

2. Please tell us what kind of funding C3SR has received from the National Association of Broadcasters or any entity connected to the NAB. If you are not comfortable with an exact number a percentage is fine.

3. Please tell us what percentage of your funding has come from businesses or lobby groups associated with terrestrial radio. Again, a percentage will do.

4. You claim to advocate on behalf of subscribers. Please tell us exactly how many subscribers you have polled to arrive at your anti-merger position.

5. Is it indeed a fact that you had an anti-merger position upon launch of your organization?

6. What is you position regarding the overwhelmingly positive consumer comments with regard to the merger?

7. If you are advocating on behalf of subscribers, what is C3SR's position should the FCC approve the merger?

8. Why has C3SR not published a position with the FCC regarding proposals from organizations such as Georgetown Partners that would strip bandwidth, and thus channels away from subscribers?

9. What is the C3SR position on open access?

10. How is the work of consultants hired by C3SR paid for? What percentage is paid by individual subscribers? What portion by organizations with ties to terrestrial radio?

11. How is the work of Julian Shepard, your attorney, paid for? Please break this down by percentage.

12. How many individual subscribers have joined the C3SR cause?

13. Why does C3SR lack any data with regard to the membership and the opinions of the membership?

14. Does C3SR agree that as an advocate, there is a responsibility to have the opinion of the subscribers so that C3SR can express the opinion of the group it claims to represent?

15. Is C3SR positioned to defend their actions as claiming to advocate on behalf of subscribers, if in fact other data clearly shows that C3SR's position is in the extreme minority?

16. Will C3SR indicate clearly that they do not advocate on behalf of subscribers and file a retraction with the FCC? This is important given the actions of C3SR shutting down the opinion of subscribers.

17. Does C3SR want the opinions of subscribers, or do they instead fear it?

18. Did Julian Shepard, the C3SR attorney, guide C3SR in their decision to shut off subscriber opinions?

If C3SR wants to claim to be a champion of subscribers, THEY MUST SEEK OUT AND ACT ON THE OPINION OF THAT GROUP. Is C3SR an advocate for subscribers, or merely an advocate for the National Association of Broadcasters who has acknowledged funding C3SR activities in the past? The ties between C3SR and the NAB have been outlined in the past, but the organization always had plausible deny-ability as to the opinions of subscribers. The groups actions today now focus a light on C3SR.

My challenge to C3SR is to step up to the plate, and accomplish the advocacy that you claim. Find out the majority opinion of subscribers, and fight for what they want. This issue is about subscribers, and simply stated, YOU C3SR, are not acting on behalf of subscribers.

Position - Long Sirius, XM.