Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: The Deal With HD

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Dlite is offline
    Dlite's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 84

    The Deal With HD

    This is regarding Newman's article here.

    Newman brings up an interesting perspective. Everyone has been adamantly against the HD radio propositions, and rightfully so. Brandon's excellent article spelled out many of the reasons why. However, it seems that a lot of the recent buzz has surrounded Adelstein and Markey's extended rate freeze and 25% of spectrum divestiture. He also wants an HD chip in every radio, but that hasn't been well publicized. It might be worthwhile to reconsider our position on HD radio, as it might be a powerful olive branch.

    After some thought, if given a choice between either the rate freeze or the amount of spectrum and the HD radio inclusion, I think I would take HD radio. As Newman says, Ibiquity has to pay for it. That is a no-brainer. But if you think about it, this isn't so different than satellite competing with traditional AM/FM radio. Given all the complaints about HD, and the poor quality of terrestrial broadcasting, I still think the majority of consumers would choose to fork out the $$$ for satrad. Giving spectrum to a party like Georgetown who might try to launch competing channels at no charge could be far more damaging to the merged companies.

  2. #2
    zcurzan is offline
    Senior Member
    zcurzan's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 404
    I agree with Newman's post. The question is, would Ibquity ever agree to something like that? They seem to have made no indication they they would be willing to foot the bill.

    I have to hope that FCC comissioners as intelligent people would have asked this question, and share our sense of disbelief that HD would be asking for Sirius to pay the cost of including someone else's technology. The concession itself is making the competiting technology readily available, they shouldn't be further penalized for paying for it.

    And maybe if the issue is being discussed behind doors, I think it's time it made it out into the press. Sirius and XM should publically extend that olive branch. It really would go a long way in showing their cooperation, but they would also be able to bring the cost issue to the forefront of the public.

    As Dlite and many others here have pointed out. Including it is not a real competitive threat to Sirius. There's a lot more dangerous concessions on the table here, and the sooner we can slam the book on these goons the better.

  3. #3
    Dlite is offline
    Dlite's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 84
    Wasn't it Tate that asked iBiquity to estimate the cost of installing the HD chip? The $10-12 figure they provided was very liberal, so I would hope they would ask a 3rd party to make the estimate before deciding.

    Another alternative would be to pass on the cost of the HD chip to the consumer. I'm very much against this option, but I would prefer it over Sirius XM footing the bill, and would still take it over spectrum auctions and price freezes.

  4. #4
    crfceo is offline
    crfceo's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 205
    there in lies the problem. Ibiquity proposes that sirius foot the bill. It still bother me that the government can order us what kind of radios the car manufacturers must install and we must listen to.

  5. #5
    john is offline
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Newman, I have a problem with this, on many scales. On the more grand scale it first, gos against what made this country great in the first place, which was capitalism. Everytime the government gets involved in something it messes it up (SS., Medicare, ethenal, ect., ect., ect.). One only has to look at anything they got involved in. The free market is the answer to most things take for instance the solar power issue if people wanted it then they would be breaking the doors down at the Home Depo to buy panels. Then solar companies would build them to make the money and would design better ones to stay ahead of the competetion in what would be a profitable market if people were breaking the doors down at the Home Depo.

    Second, you cant tell me that this is not wrong on so many levels that it just stinks. Where is it written that one company should help its competition. Even if HD pays for it to be put into satellite radio, does that still not make it more expensive for the consumer to buy that radio to get something they did not want in the first place. What in gods name is right about that; absolutely nothing.

    So in closing, just because the government wants it, does not make it the right thing to do(you and I know that, they want HD for whatever reason, to be giving over 200 million to get it started). Just because they are sick of financing it, does not mean I as a subscriber or a shareholder in SIRI/XMSR should. If I want HD I (the market) will make that decision.
    Last edited by john; 07-20-2008 at 04:13 PM. Reason: add a word for correct grammar

  6. #6
    john is offline
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Dlite, I for one would much rather have a price freeze, I tell you a little secret; The prices will stay low regaurdless of the government wanting it or not, for at least the next several years. It is a secret because most that think these concessions are a big deal are fooling themselves. I have given limited examples as to why, because the last thing I want to do is help anyone not in favor of this merger to see something they have not already. I will say if you look at them, they for the most part actually help SIRI/XMSR, not hurt them.

  7. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

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