Adelstien Lied on Bloomberg Interview

Now we know we cannot trust this man. I guess he has a candor issue himself. Today on Bloomberg, commissioner Adelstein stated that he had not heard from Sirius / Xm regarding his proposals and hoped to meet with them next week. Yet what do we have here? A filing from today outlining a meeting that took place yesterday between Adelstein and Mel Karmazin in which Mel stuck to his guns !

Quote:

---

On July 17, 2008, Mel Karmazin, Chief Executive Officer of Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (“Sirius”), and Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein discussed conditions and objections to the merger, possible modifications to the voluntary commitment letter previously filed in the above referenced proceeding, and pending enforcement issues. Mr. Karmazin reiterated positions consistent with Sirius’ filings in this proceeding, and urged prompt approval of the pending merger.

---

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520034789

I was thinking of sending in a filing to have Adel's income locked in for 6 years, and have it so I get 25% of his money.

I'm part Hispanic, so I'm a minority, therefore I should qualify easily.

I wish you would....

Adelstien Lied on Bloomberg Interview


Are you sure he lied, he always has a confused look on his face ?

I finally got the video...actually..he sort of said he met with the parties...now that I listen to it again...he says they did not give a reaction...here's the video link

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm...G0AqnUj324.asf

Wow... Adelstien really seems like a tool...

... (especially for the NAB)....

But he's right ...there's so little diversity on Satellite... especially compared to terrestrial.

I hope he goes back to the shed.

Oh, Dish and Direct TV Promised us..... dee dee dee

Lets see, 75 channels, must be available without a subscription.

Oh, and they want it for free.

Heres exactly what will happen, they will run commercial free, or very few commercial channels similar to Sirius/XM's music and news channels, nullifying the need to pay for the subscription.

This would of course hurt Sirius, as subscribers could stop paying and still have access to no commercial or low commercials radio, they wouldn't really need to run commercials because... they got everything handed to them for free.

Hell, they could re-broadcast Internet radio stations if they wanted to.

If they want so much spectrum, I think there should be a clause that they can not duplicate content available on Sirius, they should not allowed to be run their own, "Alt Nation" or "Octane" channel clones, or clones of any other channel for that matter.

I think that's probably the real reason they want so many channels, so they can in fact, duplicate content and hurt the Sirius, and it's not like they will have to pay for the spectrum anyway.

I think a more fair approach is "up to" 10% channels (30 channels), rather than giving them a bunch of channels that will immediately become "dead air", force them to develop plans for every channel they want, force them to declare exactly what will run on that channel, and then Sirius gives them the channel if the channel does not duplicate existing content already available with a subscription.

The way it sounds to me, is once they get free spectrum they will abuse the hell out of it in an effort to hurt Sirius.

The "no duplicating" Sirius content should be easy for them, since they claim they want "minority" channels anyway.

I have many diverse friends. They are black, asian, latino and gay... and, it's no surprise that we all have similar tastes as well as dissimilar tastes. So, I don't understand why it's assumed that minorities have ZERO interest in the current satrad programming lineup. Forget about the jazz, hip hop, catholic, outcast, bluegrass, country, rock etc... we need special lineups for each minority group! Well... I'm a white guy - and I like rock music, bluegrass, country, indie talk, howard stern, sports(NFL, NBA, MLB, College Football)... am I so different than other Americans who Aren't white? I mean really... if we had to set aside programming for WHITE listeners... how interesting could it be? Let's say we had a set aside of TEN channels for the white audience. What do you think it would be? How interesting... how many WHITES would listen...really?
Just something to ponder...

I forgot to look at the time of the comment, but did anyone else catch where Adelstien said "This 6 year freeze that I am proposing is actually ON TOP of the 3 years offered by the company."

This guy is on crack.

I am afraid this guy has absolutely no idea how the technology in these two companies works. He seems to think that striping away 25% of the spectrum STILL ADDS 25% to the combined entity. Does he not realize that these two companies will have to continue broadcasting seperately for the next 10-15 YEARS?! Stripping away 25% of the spectrum amounts to 37 channels having to be REMOVED from each network from day one. Which 37 channels will be removed? The diverse ones? Leaving nothing but your country, rock, rap, and oldies? Yeah, lets cut all of the content out of Sirius and XM and turn their paid programming into a clear channel clone.

Even Public Knowledge said somewhere that these new concessions would be 110% of what they were looking for. I'm sure that Sirius, XM, and GM (etc.) have made compelling arguments about why they need to keep as much spectrum as possible. It would not be good for current subscibers to break the promise of making sure that legacy radios will not become obsolete.

Did Dish and Direct TV offer a la carte pricing, lower priced packages, and a three year price freeze?

I think that even as close as Tate may be to the NAB, she may have to agree that Sirius is offering a lot here. (especially since they pay royalties.)

I always thought 8% seemed like a weird number... As though Sirius knew that they might have to go up to 10% to get the extra vote. Going into double digits gives the impression that they are really giving up something, without really giving up that much more.

Tate can ask for 10%, more detailed language in the other concessions, and come out looking like a strong but fair negotiator.

As far as diversity goes, the big issue doesn't seem to be so much about diversity in programming, but in station ownership. Once again, minorities can buy shares of Sirius or XM and become part owners of all the stations. Obviously Sirius will want to have the diverse programming that many different people will want. A la carte pricing will bring in a diverse group of customers who would not normally be able or willing to pay $13 a month.

Adelstien is just trying to get his moment before Tate steals it away... Hopefully next week. (Watch the very beginning of the above video. When he first appears on camera, he looks like a giddy school girl excited to be on tv for all her friends to see.)

It's over Johnny.... It's OVER!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newman

I forgot to look at the time of the comment, but did anyone else catch where Adelstien said "This 6 year freeze that I am proposing is actually ON TOP of the 3 years offered by the company."

---

I noticed that too, but I really think he misspoke. I think he was just trying to point out that they had already agreed to 3 years. I can't imagine he would rationally proposed 9 years, especially when Markey only asked for 6.

I'm starting to agree with CRF that Tate's issue seems to be just enforceability of the conditions. I read in one of the ex partes that they are pursuing an independent entity that would monitor their compliance to the concessions, which I think is more than fair. That takes time to establish, which is probably why she has been silent.

Either way, once Tate finally makes her proposal (and she will), there's no way she asks for nearly as much as Adelstein does.

By the way, did anyone else notice that Adelstein had a smug look on his face during the whole interview?

Or was it just me?