C3SR Wants Hundreds Of Millions in Fines For Sirius and XM
C3SR is once again “advocating” on behalf of you the consumer. In their most recent filing, penned by attorney Julian Shepard (formerly of the NAB), they requested the following on behalf of satellite radio subscribers:
- Restitution to the public for what C3SR calls intentional violations of FCC Rules.
- A sum of over $250 million for the interoperability “concession” made by the FCC at the time the licenses were granted.
- Fire all officers, directors and employees who C3SR claims participated in, had knowledge of, or conspired in the violation of FCC rules.
- Develop and put to market interoperable receivers.
- Make restitution to all subscribers who subscribed to Sirius, XM, or both for failing to put an interoperable receiver into the market.
- Give every existing subscriber a free interoperable receiver.
- Divestiture of one satellite system
- Divestiture of one license.
- Halt exclusive arrangements with programmers.
- Halt exclusive arrangements with retailers.
- Halt exclusive arrangements with manufactures.
- Create program access requirements to allow a competitor to acquire programming.
- Have temporary price freezes.
- Have specific advertising limits.
All of this is “on behalf” of you the subscriber. One of the services existing customer base will “die off” because there will be no spectrum. Isn’t that wonderful? 10,000,000 subscribers simply turned off from their service. They demand an interoperable radio even though the merger will make such a radio a moot point, as would open access. Loose a satellite system thereby harming existing subscribers. Pay huge fines, and lose programming to a “new competitor”. If you have XM and want Opie and Anthony, you could lose it. This would force you to buy a new receiver to some unidentified company.
Julian… Are you advising your client that much of what they are asking for will harm the existing subscribers that they claim to advocate for?
While there is room for debate on many issues, there is also resolution that will ensure that the subscribers your client “advocates” for are not harmed.
I assume that C3SR has copies of complaints from consumers that support all of the “damages” that they allege… right Julian?
I would assume that C3SR has surveyed subscribers about whether or not they desire an interoperable receiver… right Julian?
I would assume that C3SR has polled subscribers to see their opinions on spectrum divestiture… right Julian? Need I go on?
It looks like it is once again time for subscribers to contact the FCC and file comments. Let the FCC know where you stand on the suggestions of C3SR and their attorney Julian Shepard. Take it point by point as outlined above with your own comment to express your opinion. Spell out what your feelings are as a consumer….good bad or indifferent….it does not matter so long as you are letting the FCC know your opinions. This is important because C3SR is claiming to be your advocate. Do you want the FCC to assume that this is the case?
You can get your comments to the FCC with ease by visiting www.siriusmerger.com or www.xmmerger.com.
Position – Long Sirius, XM. Not represented by C3SR
Thank God! I was wondering when you were gonna see it! You MUST look at the end of the AG’s file! It contains the documentation C3SR filed.
I have filed all my findings with the FCC. They can also be viewed on your forum.
I believe they are doing all of this as a stall tactic and to open the door to congressional intervention when the merger approval is announced.
Also of importance, the only commissioners who gave an audience were Copps and Adelstein….the rest were all assistants and such…
How in the fuck is this still going on. What a fuckign charade. If Kevin Martin gives these guys the time of day…
Look at these requests. How can the FCC look at this and say … “hrmmm, yeah I can see that these people have a point, maybe this would be best for SR subscribers and consumers”
Hilarious! Demand interoperable receivers, but then force them to get rid of one of the services! You just made my day C3SR!
Typical stockholder review of the facts. The only people to win with the merger are the shareholders. Good thing there is a group representing the consumer.
Say no to $20 SDARS by saying no to the merger!!
This is two sided. It’s a win for the consumer and a win for the stockholders. Consumer gets to keep their current service or upgrade, and creates value for the stockholders. Look at Verizon and Alltel. Better service and value for stockholders. Who the heck is going to pay $20 for basic service. No one. Thank you. What I really like about the merger proposal is the al la carte.
Chad….
$20 SDARS? By what method do you arrive at this conclusion?
Ok Tyler, not as bad as I thought.
Dear Chairman Martin,
This is how it works. Periodically, I sit down with my checkbook and make a decision whether or not to continue to subscribe to XM satellite radio. If I ever determine that, in MY judgement, they are not delivering value for the price of the subscription, then I will not write the check. I will not continue to subscribe, but rather, I will use an alternate audio source to provide me with the information and entertainment that I desire. I do not need the intrusive efforts of your commission, congress or other interested parties to “protect” me and, in the process, deprive me of either the choices that are available to me today or the choices that have been offered in the future from the post-merger company. I make decisions every day regarding how I choose to spend or not spend my money. That freedom of choice is mine to make and I’m doing just fine, thank you.
>>> $20 SDARS? By what method do you arrive at this conclusion?
I’ll answer it. When you hand a monopoly to sat radio, they can set the price wherever they choose to. Few current subscribers are going to give up sat radio as the price edges toward $20. Unless FCC imposes strict fee regulation on the sat radio industry, the resultant monopoly will OBVIOUSLY result in higher prices than otherwise would have happened. Basic economics.
Hopefully, FCC is moving nearer rejecting this anti-consumer turkey of a deal. I’m thinking maybe they are willing to stand up for consumers where Barnett refused.
Stackpointer…
The audio entertainment market goes well beyond SDARS, and people have a limit as to what they will spend on SDARS.
Already, 50% of those exposed to the service opt to NOT get it after the free trial, and that is at $12.95 per month. Do you honestly think that if the price were $20 that the percentage would remain the same?
This merger also includes a-la-carte pricing. This will allow consumers to get SDARS less expensively if they want it.
Your opinion that few will give it up @ $20 is not really substantiated anywhere. I can get great music from Slacker for free!!! SDARS has to compete with this.
>>>> Already, 50% of those exposed to the service opt to NOT get it after the free trial, and that is at $12.95 per month. Do you honestly think that if the price were $20 that the percentage would remain the same?
Both companies have previously said they believe they can raise prices. Certainly, when XM did it, their churn was affected minimally, if at all. So, there is certainly some flexibility there, and if they have no competition, it is that much easier.
If you don’t like it, cancel. Leave the decision to me, and quit pontificating as if you’re some kind of advocate for helpless subscribers.
You’re afraid you’re going to lose your favorite music channel? Then cancel, download some songs, and get on with your (apparently not busy) life. Mind your own business and I’ll do the same. I can decide what the service is worth for myself.
stack….
The poster is talking about over a 50% price hike. Not gonna happen.
Most analysts see a 41 to $2 price increase if no merger happens.
If a merger happens, you can have a range of prices from $6.99 to $20. This is choice. This is the ability to buy what you want.
Further, you argued that XM raised prices in the midst of what you call “competition”, and was “minimally effected”. By what metric do you judge this? By churn? By growth curve going forward from that point? By retail sales? By brand recognition? Depending on how one looks at it, the viewpoint could change substantially.
just the nab protecting us agian.why dont they take the money they are trying to pay off congress with and do some good. give the money to fight aids, to fight cancer or feed the hungry here in amercia. whats wrong nab? afraid youll lose people? well regular radio lost me 4 years ago.and you will never get me back.