Ibiquity Seeks Inclusion – Georgetown Partners Seeks Handout
In a filing with the FCC, Ibiquity, the company behind HD Radio, is seeking inclusion into all satellite radio receivers should a merger be granted. Ibiquity still takes no official stance on the merger, but does call the merger a monopoly. Ibiquity feels that satellite radio has entered into exclusive subsidized arrangements with automobile manufacturers that could preclude HD radio from gaining a foothold in the industry.
Interestingly, though full details of many OEM agreements are not public, there has never been any indication that the "exclusive arrangements" have ever been exclusive to anything but satellite radio products. Indeed, HD radio already has deals in place with BMW as well as Ford.
In my opinion, Sirius and XM should not be penalized for coming to arrangements with auto manufacturers, nor for subsidizing the installation of receivers. Both Sirius and XM have invested large sums of upfront money to pave the way for their services to get into the dashboards of automobiles, and beyond that have given many OEM's a share of revenue.
For these reasons a requirement to include HD radio into satellite radio receivers would be tantamount to letting another business model avoid the heavy costs that have been born onto the shoulders of stockholders in Sirius and XM. There is no free ride these days. Is Ibiquity planning to pay any subsidy? Are they willing to share revenue with OEM's, or even Sirius and XM?
For Sirius and XM to get where they are today was a process that Ibiquity wants a short-cut on. To provide that shortcut without remuneration seems unrealistic. Why should shareholders of Sirius and XM be required to bear the burden that Ibiquity themselves seems unwilling to bear?
In a second filing, Chester Davenports Georgetown Partners is seeking a sweetheart deal of a requirement for Sirius and XM to lease 20% of their channel capacity for this "diverse" company to operate and run. Once again, why should current investors be asked to sacrifice 20% of their capabilities and infrastructure to Georgetown Partners? Further, why is Georgetown Partners negotiating with the FCC rather than Sirius and XM? Is is right that a broad statement such as a requirement of 20% of the bandwidth be proffered to the government instead of the Boards of Sirius and XM? The Boards have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, the FCC has no such tie. Why has Georgetown Partners not identified the dollar figure which they are proposing? Why have they not demonstrated programming concepts to fill 40 channels of programming?
Filings such as these grow tiresome quickly. Since when does a proposed merger mean that the FCC is now in charge of a welfare program? Quid Pro Quo happens in Washington. Handouts do as well. Just because it happens does not make it right. Shareholders of Sirius and XM have endured years of these companies growing pains. They have endured recapitalization, dilution of shares, and an onslaught of competition such as iPods and cell carriers offering content that was not imagined when the services launched. Asking shareholders to give 20% away to Chester Davenport, and to include HD Radio into all receivers without real remuneration is simply asking too much.
Position - Long Sirius, XM
Apologies for all my spelling mistakes…
>>> All you care about is what is playing in YOUR LOCATION.
That’s not the issue. The national “footprint” means that where ever I am, I can get the stations I like and that I’m familiar with, I don’t have to constantly be re-tuning to get good reception, and I know I’m going to have the content I know and expect. This isn’t a major factor for everyone, but it is an important distinguishing characteristic for many. That it isn’t for you, well, that’s you.
I recommend you google “satellite radio advantages” and read the first 10 or so articles. Practically every article refers to the “national footprint” in some way or another. That it isn’t an issue for YOU is immaterial; most people apparently find it to be a significant feature.
whenever you start listing “facts”, it pays to watch out. But I would add, several of the items you list are “facts” are facts, but they just aren’t relevant facts.
For example, it is true that sat radio comprises only 4-5% of all radio listening, but this is actually not relevant to the discussion, since terrestrial radio cannot reasonably be considered to be in the same business as satellite radio.
You tell us consumers find viable substitutes, but these are not “substitutes” within the meaning of well-defined antitrust law — they are more aptly classified as “alternatives” — which may include listening to absolutely nothing while driving (I know several people who actually prefer this).
You say a “national footprint matters little” to the consumer; this, however, is not a fact as can be proven easily by reading what most people consider to be advantages of satellite radio.
You just don’t understand the issues. That people dropping XM don’t sign up for Sirius is meaningless in the antitrust debate. They simply choose not to buy a particular type of product. It is faulty logic — if I choose not to buy a Ford SUV, can you infer from that that I chose to buy a new Harley instead? Of course not. If I choose not to buy satellite radio, it means one thing: I chose not to buy satellite radio. Duh.
You need to be careful what you call a “fact” — just because you think it doesn’t make it a fact.
Sirius Int —
>>> 1. If sat rad merges will competition increase? Yes, because internet radio, HD radio, terrestrial, slacker, GPS, etc, etc will offer better products.
I appreciate your opinion, but it is not consistent with what we know to be the history of competition — that cutting the competition roughly in half improves the service.
>>> 2. Will consumers pay approximately the same or less for the same or similar product?
Yes, they will have more choice and the option to keep the same service at the smae price when people are currently talking about raising prices.
Again, this just can’t be shown to be true. Once the monopoly is created, Mel is free to raise prices as he determines is necessary. Do other competing services restrict his ability? Probably — but price elasticity is indiscrete and thus, it is a matter of degree.
>>> 3. Will SDARS service be better? Yes, no need for two services. More content available.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, to support this claim. In fact, by all accounts, LESS content will be available, not more.
>>> 4. Will competitor service be better?
Yes. iTunes, HD radio, internet radio, etc will have to offer the same value proposition as sat rad if they decide to offer more content or a cheaper product. They will have to lower prices or offer more for the same price (or perhaps less commercials in the case of normal radio).
Sorry, but this is nonsense. As was said, it is only 4% of the broader market — the tail won’t wag the dog.
>>> 5. Is there any disadvantages for the consumer? Frontmed, perhaps you can answer this without saying using “no competition” because you already agreed that SDARS competes with sat rad.
Sure there are disadvantages. First and foremost, we will lose roughly half of the currently available 140 combined music channels. More importantly, we will have ALL of satellite radio under the control of one entity, which obviously results in greatly decreased diversity (this is, after all, the principal objection to a single owner controlling entire terrestrial markets). Another HUGE disadvantage is the absolute waste of the scarcest of resources — spectrum — which will, for a significant time after the merger, be used to broadcast substantially identical programming.
>>> 6. Are there substitutes?
Yes, normal radio is available in all markets. Perhaps if they want to be more competitive they could offer more variety/channels to more effectively compete. It is there choice to not compete with the variety of sat rad. Substitutes are demonstarted by churn, etc, as discussed before.
I’ve explained that these are not substitutes within the meaning of antitrust law and that in fact, XM/SIRI are trying to get years of antitrust law thrown out with this merger. And they may succeed.
Mel has done a great job of selling this concept; it is a fairly easy sell, to be honest, because MOST people who are not subscribers simply don’t understand the differences between sat radio and other forms of in-vehicle entertainment.
I appreciate your list of opinions on the subject, and you’re entitled to them. But it is important not to conflate opinions with facts (as Dobie has done above). When one looks at the facts underlying the proposition, it becomes very difficult to support the merger on antitrust grounds alone. Combine that with sat radio’s acceptance of the licenses conditioned upon no merger (ever), and the anti-merger position is overwhelmingly, factually correct.
That is not to say it won’t be allowed to go forward, because there are definitely politics involved.
1. As I said earlier, most americans are within range of their terrestrial radio stations for the vast majority of their time. There is no need to retune if you never leave your market. Sure, you may leave your market to go to Disney, but are you really listening to radio while riding space mountain?
2. Perception of a significant feature and reality differ. Most Americans say they want a CD player in their car, biut according to you, CD’s do not matter any more. I rarely listen to CD’s anymore, but I am not ready to buy a car without a CD player. Again, do you care what is on the radio in Vermont right now? You have yet to answer that simple question. The fact is that it does not matter.
3. The “well defined antitrust law” illustrates that these other audio mediums are substitutes. Your “selective glimpse” at antitrust law from an anti merger perspective is countered with many arguments from the other side. At the end of the day, it is the DOJ that will make the decision.
4. The facts are all there for you or anyone to see. Because your reality does not match that of 95% of the people will lead you to the conclusion that these facts are not facts. The facts I listed are just that….Facts
5. Your argument that people who opt not to buy satellite radio are listening to road noise is laughable, and demonstrates your jaded view of the issue. People are listening to something. On one hand you love to state that regular radio listening is not declining, but on the other you want to say they are listening to road noise.
Virtually every point that you raise is easily refuted. You are in a huge minority regarding the merger, and the reasons are that yours, as well as the NAB’s arguments simply do not hold water.
Tell Mr. Rehr I said hello.
>>>I appreciate your opinion, but it is not consistent with what we know to be the history of competition — that cutting the competition roughly in half improves the service.
Reducing the competiton by 2% of the broader market is not half (~50% of 4%).
>>> Once the monopoly is created, Mel is free to raise prices as he determines is necessary. Do other competing services restrict his ability? Probably — but price elasticity is indiscrete and thus, it is a matter of degree.
Mel already has his price offerings out. Show me one instance where you receive less content for more money.
>>> Sorry, but this is nonsense. As was said, it is only 4% of the broader market.
4% goes to show that people find a better value proposition elsewhere.
>>>First and foremost, we will lose roughly half of the currently available 140 combined music channels. Another HUGE disadvantage is the absolute waste of the scarcest of resources — spectrum — which will, for a significant time after the merger, be used to broadcast substantially identical programming.
Well currently, they are being wasted broadcasting almost the same content on at many of the music stations.
you’re back to your pitiful, weak arguments, so I’ll go away and leave you to it. There is no end, but with each iteration your positions get weaker.
I will say that anytime you want to debate the antitrust issue I will be glad to explain it to you because you certainly don’t have a clue what the issues are.
I would strongly recommend you read the comments submitted by the Antitrust Institute, because I believe they are probably the most forthright and most informed of any comments on the merger.
>>> The facts I listed are just that
I don’t think any objective observer would view them that way. I’m sure followers of this blog would support your position — it is your blog and is mostly monitored by Siriots (who, in large part, support the merger — either because Mel wants it, or because they [mistakenly] believe they will get improved content as a result of it. XM listeners tend to be happy with what they’re getting, and largely are opposed to the merger, IMO.
Also regarding this gem:
>>> There is no evidence, whatsoever, to support this claim. In fact, by all accounts, LESS content will be available, not more.
More HIGH VALUE (MLB, NFL, NHL, Stern Oprah, O&A, NASCAR…) content will be available under the same service umbrealla for 19.95 instead of having 2 services for 15 bucks a piece. As a listener, not having 2 top 40 stations, 2 pop, etc is not a huge loss for me.
As a listener of both, when they say that they will pick the best stations of both, a 33% reduction in cost (not to mention having two receivers which is ridiculous) is a great propostion even if some of the stations that they decide are the best (ie, best top 40) are not my favorite of the two.
Frontmed
Can you point me to any study that shows that Sirius subscribers are in favor of the merger while XM subscribers are against it? This seems completely ridiculous to me.
I agree with some of your points but, your personal attacks on people substantially weaken/lessen your argument.
>>>> More HIGH VALUE (MLB, NFL, NHL, Stern Oprah, O&A, NASCAR…) content will be available under the same service umbrealla for 19.95 instead of having 2 services for 15 bucks a piece. As a listener, not having 2 top 40 stations, 2 pop, etc is not a huge loss for me.
I’m unclear on just how you think this is going to happen. The merger does NOT give XM the right to broadcast NASCAR races or NFL games, nor does it give Sirius the right to broadcast NHL or MLB games. There is no reason NFL or MLB would agree to allow this content to be broadcast on both services without substantial additional payments, money the combined company can ill-afford to spend.
One can envision various contortions of the current content situation; however, any major change, other than a “best of” arrangement, requires the creation of a dual-mode receiver, which Mel claimed under oath would cost $700 and thus cannot be done profitably, which means it isn’t going to happen (unless he lied under oath).
If any of what we’ve been told is accurate, the two services will remain largely independent, from a non-music content perspective, after the merger. If you are presuming there will be a dual-mode receiver, that is a pretty big leap from where we are today — if they can’t produce them cost effectively today, there is no reason to expect them to do so after the merger (it is my opinion we’ll never see a dual-mode receiver, or at least not in the next several years, due to the cost and the very small number of subscribers who would be willing to purchase subscriptions to both services). Music programming will likely be collapsed into a single set of about 70 music channels within a short period (perhaps 2-3 years).
>>> As a listener of both, when they say that they will pick the best stations of both, a 33% reduction in cost
There is no reason, whatsoever, to expect anything other than a near-total elimination of half of the music stations — which is likely to happen quickly (within the first couple of years). This, of course, frees up no bandwidth — it just reduces the in-house production budget (which isn’t that much). You are not going to end up with 6 classical channels, you will end up with 3. Combining the rock channels will be more difficult, but will be done, if more slowly. Peck has estimated that an amount equivalent to XM’s entire in-house production budget will be slashed within 2 years.
The important thing is that all the bull that is being promised about “more diversity” and “choice” — is out the window the day after merger approval unless FCC gets iron-clad a priori commitments.
I think the biggest point of confusion about the merger is that, somehow, overnight, you’re going to be able to receive XM/SIRI both on one receiver. Even if they decided to do it, it would be very far into the future; more likely, it just won’t happen. I have posted my rationale for this belief at orbitcast and won’t go back over it here. The second biggest point of confusion is on the related topic of bandwidth; the merger frees up zero bandwidth unless the companies’ “promises” to support legacy receivers into perpetuity are broken.
>>>> Can you point me to any study that shows that Sirius subscribers are in favor of the merger while XM subscribers are against it? This seems completely ridiculous to me.
I know of no studies either way on the subject; my remarks are based solely on responses to informal Internet polls. I will say the results, while not statistically important, were anecdotally overwhelming —
At orbitcast, of those who prefer XM, 7/27 support the merger, while of those who prefer Sirius, 15/16 support the merger.
At XM411, 11/65 who preferred XM support the merger, while 3/4 who preferred Sirius supported the merger.
I know — anecdotal, unscientific, and meaningless — but it is the best you can get right now without spending money…. But IMO, it does represent the overall feeling of those who are knowledgeable about the subject. Those who subscribe to one service or the other because it was in the car they bought, probably don’t care one way or the other as they have no awareness of the other service or what it all means anyway.
>>> I agree with some of your points but, your personal attacks on people substantially weaken/lessen your argument.
I am not aware of having made any personal attacks.
With regards to the AAI filing, it doesn’t seem like their existence lends itself to being pro merger. Also their filing is dated from June and they have not responded to any ex parte filings from XM/Sirius since then.
Sidak analysis was also proven to be poor to say the least.
There is tonnes of statistical evidence showing substitutionality between other audio forms although the data is redacted.
I would suggest you read (from the fcc website) http://www.fcc.gov/transaction.....tml#record :
1/11/08
Redacted Copies of CRA International’s Further Analysis Document, filed by Sirius Satellite Radio Inc, and XM Satellite Radio Holdings
11/13/07
Redacted Joint Ex Parte Submission filed by Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.
[ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 ]
There is no substantial evidence that Sirius and XM subscribers differ materially with regard to the merger, and this has been pointed out to Frontmed on past occassions.
Our Sister site, http://www.satcos.blogspot.com has several surveys that contradict his assertion. Those are anecdotal as well however.
To find the sentiment of subscribers, one needs to look no further than the FCC comments. There have been over 11,000 of them. Having read them all, the sentiment towards the merger is that subscribers want it. It is pretty plain and simle.
>>> With regards to the AAI filing, it doesn’t seem like their existence lends itself to being pro merger.
They are adamantly opposed to the merger, in that it is anticompetitive. But they lack the agenda of the vast majority of the other organizations who have had something to say about it.
There has been no need for them to update their filings as there have been no new developments in any of the filings from XM or SIRI. I have read XM’s & SIRI’s filings, and they are just what you’d expect — self-serving documents designed to get everyone to take their eyes off the ball.
The Antitrust Institute has put forth the most well-reasoned analysis of any commentator to date.
>>> To find the sentiment of subscribers, one needs to look no further than the FCC comments.
Sorry, it is just as anecdotal as online polls, and lacks the structured responses required to make it meaningful. Totally useless as a resource on this subject.
That said, since is is “plain and simple”, what proportion of those who prefer XM support the merger, and what proportion of those who prefer Sirius support the merger? Thanks.
Actually FrontMed the following was posted after the AAI and offers the benefits of the merger to the public. Also, the communications that I posted earlier demonstrate elasticity of pricing and substitutionality, two things that the AAI said that Sirius and XM could not demonstrate.
In addition their pricing package offers benefits to the consumer and they have communicated why they could not offer the same pricing without the merger. So in fact, you are misinforming people reading this thread and the AAI arguments are out of date because sirius has demonstrated things you and the AAI said that they couldnt.
7/24/07
Joint Opposition to Petitions to Deny and Reply filed by Sirius Satellite Radio, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.
[ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]
SI –
I’ve read the filing you’re referring to, as well as just about every other bit of pro-merger nonsense that has been written.
However, it is important to recognize that XM and SIRI want the merger because it gives them an unregulated monopoly which can exercise its pricing power against the public. Thus, they will say and do anything to get it approved. Nothing they say at this point constitutes a commitment.
As to the AAI arguments, they are not out of date because they are legal arguments which cannot be refuted based on current law. The only real change has been the Whole Foods case, which has only fringe relevance to the XM/SIRI case. The Staples case is much more on point with the XM/SIRI case.
The most laughable point in your post simply cannot be passed up though — XM and SIRI have demonstrated NOTHING in their filings, other than that they’re willing to say anything to get it done. It is the same old crap, reheated, and served up to try to win approval.
I don’t see this argument going anywhere, so I’m out of it for now. I think that the public supporting a merger to monopoly is a mistake, and continue to hope that DOJ and/or FCC will step in and stop it. The satellite radio business will be better off, and the consumers will certainly be.
Frontmed….
So FCC comments from consumers are now as anecdotal as on line polls. Real consumers expressing their opinion on the merger are meaningless? Come on now, these are real consumers expressing their opinion without being asked a question that could be considered a leading one.
Someone stating something like, “I am an XM subscriber and want the merger” is anecdotal?
The surveys at http://www.satcos.blogspot.com offer detailed information as well.
As to proportions
Those that have XM and those that have Sirius are pretty much equal in what can be considered overwhelming support for the merger.
>> So FCC comments from consumers are now as anecdotal as on line polls.
Run of the mill consumers are not the same people who are responding, either with FCC comments, or to Internet polls.
For a poll to be meaningful it must be a random sample that is representative of the population. We’ve covered this before.
As an example of the credibility of anecdotal polls, consider the online & text messaging polls favoring Ron Paul, versus the number of people actually voting for him. You get the idea.
Of the people I’ve sampled, the response has been overwhelming as I’ve stated. The FCC response may well provide a different result. This is because neither method is scientific nor is the sample representative of the population.
I just happen to believe the online polls are more reliable because they are structured to provide an honest result. My opinion, but I’ve clearly indicated the results aren’t scientific.
You claim to know how the FCC comments break down between those who prefer XM versus those who prefer Sirius. If you do, please cite the numbers. If you don’t, just admit you don’t know — it won’t kill you.
To divine ANY useful information from the poll you must know whether the respondents prefer Sirius or XM, otherwise the basic question we’re discussing cannot even be speculated about. Do you have this information on the FCC comments? I don’t recall seeing it.
I’ve at least specified what the results were. You, for some reason, prefer to leave it as, “Oh, they’re about the same”. Surely, you will admit that such a qualitative comment does not add to the discussion, right?
Frontmed…
What I have said is that I have read all of the comments filed with the FCC. I have sorted comments by pro or anti merger. I have not bothered to separate out Sirius subscribers vs. XM subscribers because the overwhelming sentiment suggest that it simy is not a material activity to do. When over 70% of the comments (sans the NAB debacle of trying to stack the deck) are in favoir of the merger, there is no need to really look deeper.
In reading all of the comments, it is abundently clear that whether someone is a Sirius subscriber or an XM subscriber, they are overwhlmingly for the merger. We have discussed this before, and I have even pointed out clearcut examples to you before.
In your statement you assert that Sirius subscribers want the merger and that XM subscribers are satisfied with what they have. Such an assertion is laugable, and evidence that is on file with the SEC even goes against what you are saying.
By example, Sirius’ self pay churn is at 1.6%. XM’s self pay churn is at 1.8%. Which subscriber would you conclude is more happy with their service?
Do you even realize what you are saying?
>> I have not bothered to separate out Sirius subscribers vs. XM subscribers
Fair enough. So, you do not know. I can accept that. If you haven’t tabulated, all you had to do was to say so.
>> By example, Sirius’ self pay churn is at 1.6%. XM’s self pay churn is at 1.8%. Which subscriber would you conclude is more happy with their service?
Actually, Sirius claimed 1.6% for the “full year” versus 1.69% (XM, MRQ). Until Sirius discloses how they computed the 1.6% figure, a direct comparison is not appropriate.
(To appropriately compare XM’s & SIRI’s subscriber #s it is necessary to reduce SIRI’s total by well more than a million subscribers. It is reasonable to expect that SIRI also fudges the churn figure by at least 0.09%.)
1. I Do know. The sentiment of XM subscribers and Sirius subscribers regarding the merger is not materially different. The comments bear this out in an obvious fashion.
2. Self paying churn is defined as the number of self paying subscribers that churn out. the point I am making, which seems to go over your head is that the churn data illustrates that the companies subscribers seem to have similar sentiments towards subscribership. Your assertion that XM subscribers “are happy with the service they have and therefor do not want the merger” and Sirius subscribers, “want the merger because they are clammoring for XM content” is off base by a country mile. I think you know this already though.
>>> Self paying churn is defined as the number of self paying subscribers that churn out.
No, it is not. In XM’s case, monthly self-paying churn is defined as the number of self-paying deactivations divided by the weighted-average subscriber counts for the period. We do not know how Sirius defines it at this point; perhaps their 10K will provide some detail. Even a nuance such as using a straight average of subscriber #s over the year versus a weighted average, or monthly average, can have a substantial effect on the churn calculation — certainly more than the .09 difference we’re talking about. We just have to wait and see how they chose to calculate that metric. One thing is pretty likely — they will have chosen the method that makes it look best for them regardless of whether it makes sense to compute it that way (just as they’ve done with their subscriber counts).
At this point, SIRI’s s/p churn figure is just too nebulous to attach any meaning to it.
>>> I Do know. The sentiment of XM subscribers and Sirius subscribers regarding the merger is not materially different.
Perhaps you THINK you know, or perhaps you WANT it to be a certain way — but without numbers to back it up, you saying you know really doesn’t mean much.
I’ve been reading your posts for years now, and you consistently try to make Sirius look better than it is in real life, and you also have a persistent pro-merger bias that makes its way into every merger-related post you make. And it is certainly your prerogative to do so. But what it means is that without hard numbers, readers must assume that any remarks you make have a pro-Sirius bias.
If you haven’t tabulated the actual comments by who has an XM-preference versus who has a Sirius-preference, I just don’t believe it is possible to know what their respective feelings are about it.
If you want to claim that a certain % of the respondents support the merger, as you’ve done, I can’t argue with that — you DID tabulate that information. But without an honest breakdown between SIRI-preference and XM-preference, I don’t see how you can present anything meaningful other than to say, “I’m guessing they view it about the same, but I have no data to back it up”. You get that, right?
Frontmed…
1. Sirius has been disclosing self paying churn as well as fully loaded churn for quite some time. The two metrics differ by the OEM subscribers that are getting subscriptions paid for by an OEM manufacturer. You could make a simple phone call to verify this.
2. The point at hand was your assertion that XM subscribers are anti merger and Sirius subscribers are pro merger. The churn data, regardless, illustrates that the satisfaction of subscribers is very similar. Thus, it is one method by which to prove that your point is not a factual assertion.
3. In the process of reading all of the comments, and assigning a pro merger or anti merger stance to them, I get a very good idea of how consumers who choose to identify the service they have feel. In that experience, there is simply not a material difference in those opinions.
4. What I WANT matters very little. I have always been of the opinion that the exclusive OEM contracts are not the way to go. I have always felt that letting the consumer choose the service they want is the way it should be.
Since you do not want to do the homework, I looked at the most recent 100 consumer comments:
59 expressed support for the merger but did not identify a satellite radio service
13 expressed support for the merger and identified themselves as Sirius subscribers.
10 expressed support for the merger and identified themselves as XM subscribers
11 expressed support for the merger and identified themselves as subscribers to both services
1 was unsure about the merger and expressed that they were a Sirius subscriber
1 stated they were against the merger and that they are an XM subscriber
5 expressed that they were against the merger but specified no satellite radio company.
As I stated, the sentiment is quite clear and overwhelming. There is no real material diff. between those that identify themselves as XM subscribers and those that identify themselves as Sirius subscribers.
93% favor the merger
6% are against it
1% unsure
The general public is vastly in favor of the merger.
There will be plenty of people who will no longer have to decide between both services and get neither.
Frontmed is in a small minority who dont want both services under the same umbrella.
>>>> The general public is vastly in favor of the merger.
Do you have ANY evidence, whatsoever, to back this statement up? I have seen NOTHING that would even REMOTELY suggest the “general public” is vastly in favor of the merger.
Not that it matters. The general public VASTLY misunderstands what the merger does and does not mean for them. From reading posts by the “general public” on non-sat radio related message boards, I can tell yo that the “general public” actually believes that a merger means they’ll wake up one day and be able to get both services’ content on a single receiver. Not happening. Many actually believe they’ll also get this at the same price the currently pay for ONE service. Not happening. Many believe they will get “more diverse” content. Not happening (and in fact, the content will be LESS diverse post-merger).
The point is, I don’t know (and you don’t, either) how the general public feels about the merger — but I *DO* know they don’t comprehend what the merger means and doesn’t mean to them. Part of the sales job by XM’s & SIRI’s management has been to obscure the downside of the merger, and they have done a great job at it. Even close followers of the industry like you and Tyler don’t fully comprehend what the merger does and doesn’t mean. How can the general public be expected to?
Frontmed is a extremist, and it is pointless to argue with him. He has already eluded that if the DOJ and FCC approve the merger they would be wrong to have done so. But I think they have a little more expertice at the DOJ then he has in antitrust matters. Maybe he thinks they have been bought by Mel K. or they are not looking out for the publics welfare. He might think that they dont want to be slapped in the face by another federal judge telling them they have got to widen their preception of what the market is, like in the whole foods merger. But it has nothing to do with antitrust matters or the publics welfare, they would just plain be wrong too do so As a side note Mel just stated that an increase that was suppose to happen latter this year, (if the merger was denied) is not going to happen reason he gave (in a nut shell) was he was more interested in gaining subs. and was afraid of what it would do to the churn rate. Now Frontmed dont respond to this because I already know you think Mel to be the antichrist and cant trust anything he says.