Regarding the new opposition...

There's a move in Congress to force XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (XMSR) and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (SIRI) to further expand public and minority channels as a condition of their merger. But the proposed additional concessions aren't likely to prevail, according to people familiar with the deal.

......

"With the commitments the two companies have offered, on balance, this transaction seems to be a fair way to compromise," said FCC Spokesman Robert Kenny, responding to the letters.

https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/Sto...vider=DowJones

------------

I'd like to see someone come out in the media who would come out and explain the inequalities of forcing satellite radio to put HD capacity into their receivers. And even if they wouldn't be responsible for the cost because its all open device, the cost will be passed unnecessarily passed onto the consumer. Let's face it, if you are using one, you probably have little interest in the other.

The only way I wouldn't have a problem with that is if iBiquity subsidized the cost. Let them negotiate their own OEM deals. No free ride for HD.

Why force it into the satellite receiver - is it going to require another antenna? If it is then it would remain dormant in my case...

As far as I can tell, the argument is made that in the case of someone who signs up for satellite and no longer wants to listen to it, they have the option of free digital radio.

It clearly just a ploy to promote the penetration of HD radio, with no justification.

Why is it clear channel, which owns more channels than a combined sirius and xm, has no minority media mandate?

Commissioner Tate says:

But, what is the state of women and minorities in broadcasting? According to a recent Free Press survey of commercial television ownership entitled, “Out of the Picture:

Minority & Female TV Station Ownership in the United States,” researchers found that:
• Women comprise 51 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own a total of only 67 stations, or 4.97 percent of all stations.
• Minorities comprise 33 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own a total of only 44 stations, or 3.26 percent of all stations.
Breaking minority ownership down even further:
• Hispanics or Latinos comprise 14 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own a total of only 15 stations, or 1.11 percent of all stations.
• Blacks or African Americans comprise 13 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own a total of only 18 stations, or 1.3 percent of all stations.
• Asians comprise 4 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own a total of only 6 stations, or 0.44 percent of all stations.

http://www.mediainstitute.org/Speech...e_20070228.pdf

What I don't really understand about these minority arguments is why does ownership of a business segment have to parallel the population of the United States? It completely overlooks whether there is a demand for such an arrangement.

Are we going to force blacks into the plumbing profession because only 8 percent of plumbers in the United States are black? Ownership of a radio station it just that, ownership of a business venture. If the real issue is diverse programming that appeals to the true demographics of the United States, what does it matter if it comes from a Caucasian or Asian. The end product is what is the public interest. The color of persons who had the resources, determination, and business model to bring the broadcast to fruition is irrelevant.

"Of the 10,577 commercial AM and FM radio stations licensed in 2000, only 4
percent were minority owned"

http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/...03comments.pdf


I want to know why these democratic, NAB paid congressional representatives don't go after the NAB's banker....the radio stations they lobby for, and demand more minority ownership of terrestrial radio.

They seem ok with a 4% ownership of terrestrial radio..double standards?

Exactly, now why can't a fact like this make it into a major news publication?

because they're a bunch of pussies, and the media is controlled by the few and proud members of ......the NAB!

An afterthought:

When I opened my brokerage accounts i never answered any questions regarding my race or color. Sirius is a public company. As such, it already has a certain percentage of minority ownership. So the truth of the whole situation does not boil down to media ownership. Because for all anyone knows, sirius may already be 50% minority owned. No one knows the percentage. Probably because this is America.

So if its not about minority ownership, what is it about? Ah! A minority PLATFORM! That's right folks. They want to be heard! They want the spotlight. This has nothing to do with ownership. Let's face it. There is no owner in this situation but you and I. The shareholders. Are they going to draw huge sums of money? Probably not. So the motive. A platform, where political candidates can reach out to the minority VOTER.

Thoughts?

I have always said that I could never run for a government office if I had to be elected.

I simply don't care about race as an issue because I have never beleived that it SHOULD be an issue, and too many people do not like that, white, black, brown, yellow, or purple.

Now if that wasn't enough, look at all the democratic campaign contributions to go with all the democratic support of his hijacking of Sirius!

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_...&first=Chester