Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Adelstien Lied on Bloomberg Interview

  1. #11
    spanyo is offline
    Enthusiast
    spanyo's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 135
    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!
    Last edited by spanyo; 07-19-2008 at 10:57 AM.

  2. #12
    Dlite is offline
    Member
    Dlite's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 84
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Dlite is offline
    Member
    Dlite's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 84
    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?

  4. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •