Possible deciding vote on $3.1 billion merger between satellite radio companies says he will support approval if the companies agree to tougher conditions
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...0-11-12-13-14/
---
Unless Tate had a sex change or Copps had an epiphany we are talking about Adelstein. I wonder what kind of tougher conditions he is after?
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/storie...06-16-07-24-43Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The potential deciding vote in the U.S. government's review of the $3.1 billion merger between satellite radio companies tells The Associated Press he will vote in favor of the deal if the companies agree to tougher conditions.
So far, two of the five members of the Federal Communications Commission have voted to approve Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.'s buyout of rival XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. That is one vote shy of a majority.
FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, wants the companies to cap prices for six years and make one quarter of their satellite capacity available for public interest and minority programming, among other conditions.
If the executives agree, Adelstein told the AP that he will be in favor of the deal.
When you "cap" a price I wonder how that is determined, on a "pre channel" basis? What if you introduce new types of packages, what kind of requirement are they subject to? Six years seems kind of extreme. A lot can change in an economy and in an industry in six years. You are really handicapping the company.
What are the thoughts on the 25 percent set aside? You only get lease revenue from the portion given to the minority programming, not for the public interest right? Will that cripple the company? Or is it something they can manage?
Final question? Does this shed any light on where Tate might be? To me it seems like we've set the worst case scenario for Tate's requirements, she certainly would never demand more than Adelstein, a democrat. Maybe this is an opportunity for her to disagree with Adelstein, and pass with less requirements like her fellow Republicans.
This is might as well be a "no" vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by zcurzan
Can't change prices for SIX years (2014!!!), and give up 25% of the spectrum to entities that will broadcast free radio and probably compete with Sirius on their own system, which will further hurt the viability of the merger.
At least he doesn't want them to include HD Radio.
Does this provide any evidence as to whether Tate has voted yet or not? This could be his way of rejecting the proposal within that ten day window.Quote:
Originally Posted by voogru
25 percent is excessive even in its most favorable intepretation, ie: That the company maintains control of that 25 percent. Its least favorable manifestation (whereby the NAB gets would get its hooks in that 25 percent) sounds particularly crappy. I hope that Adelstein is open to compromise. Perhaps 10 percent without NAB hijacking for its own profit motives is something both sides can live with.
Here's hoping Tate makes it a moot point in the near future.
:cheers:
I may be the minority here (no pun intended), but I would accept this offer rather than no merger at all. I would make it a condition, however, that Sirius XM manages the 25% and it is not leased out to other companies (NAB, Georgetown, etc.). That would be a deal breaker.
That would be 36 public interest and 36 minority channels. After synergization, there will be more than enough remaining channels to sport an attractive lineup. Plus these set asides will attract new customers (at better prices).
I'm not as crazy about the 6 year freeze, for the same reasons as the rest of you -- the uncertainly mostly -- but I would still take it. The company should still be able to find alternate revenue streams, and I think they can still achieve profitability.
And no HD chip whatsoever. That is also a dealbreaker (and frankly, stupid).
I see this news as good as I expected Adelstein to be a no vote, but am still hoping Tate will come in with lesser conditions (or none at all).
I think Adelstein's 25% is leased spectrum and most definitely a deal breaker.
Let's hope that he's just trying to force Tate's hand and that she comes through with a reasonable compromise. He's certainly opening the door for her to look like the hero, even though her concessions will likely still be onerous compared to Martin's.
Bad news....he DOES want low def radio....Quote:
At least he doesn't want them to include HD Radio.
"Adelstein is proposing that the companies be required to include a digital radio tuner in any radios they subsidize that also include regular, non-digital AM-FM service."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...PX1DAD91VRHH00
It's a no vote...he just wants to make it look like he was willing to deal, so that it falls on the companies...
The more I think about it, this news shouldn't be that surprising. I mean granted he has been silent and some people speculated that he might support the deal... but he's a democrat. And we've always suspected that this would come down to party lines.
Unless I missed it, his tuner requirement (like always) refuses to address who would pay for the chip. Which IMO is the most essential part of the proposal. Its the elephant in the room that no one wants to address.
Come on Tate...
Bad news....he DOES want low def radio....
"Adelstein is proposing that the companies be required to include a digital radio tuner in any radios they subsidize that also include regular, non-digital AM-FM service."
_____________________
This could be construed to mean that only the radios SIRI/XM subsidizes which already contain a standard AM/FM band would be required to also contain (the failing) HD radio as well. :confused:
We are accustomed to these kinds of odd phrases, they seem to abound in all sirius matters.
Also, I do not quite understand what Adelstein means by the word subsidize in the context he is using.
I would assume any radios XM/Sirius Pay for/ or give a discount with a subscription like a cell phoneQuote:
Originally Posted by deewcom
This was part of the HD inclusion discussion earlier. I forget in who's exparte, but the clarification was that the combined satellite company would not need to install HD capability in its stand alone receivers. They would only have to include it in the combined receivers that already had FM capability.Quote:
This could be construed to mean that only the radios SIRI/XM subsidizes which already contain a standard AM/FM band would be required to also contain (the failing) HD radio as well.
HD stands for Hybrid Digital (not Hi Def!) and it is loaded with commercials. No wonder its been a big flop. Great article. Very enlightening. Explains a lot. The tack-on, piggyback HD that Adelstein and others are pushing is a travesty. Its a failed product and NAB is trying like hell to get SIRI/XM to rescue the stink bomb in its death throes.
The only way any SIRI/XM subscribers would listen to HD radio is if they didn't pay their subscription bill and were left with no other choice. That seems to be the desperation angle the NAB is pursuing with its attempt to ride the coattails of the popular SIRI/XM.
Adelstein has either not scrutinized the matter carefully enough and/or he may be beholden to the NAB.
The HD Radio requirement can be thrown out the window, the biggest cost with forcing HD Radio would be, the manufacturers producing 14+ million cars a year, if 50% of them have Sirius/XM, and it costs $10 for each HD Radio chip, that's 70M a year that Sirius would have to pay.
So how do they beat that? By allowing the manufacturers to develop their own OEM radio that has AM/FM, Sirius then just ships them a Satellite radio with no AM/FM ability.
iBullshit can then continue to chase the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.