Dear Mr. Rehr
Dear Mr. Rehr,
You have engaged in double talk for years. When it suits your membership, consolidation of companies is fine, when it does not, it is anti-consumer. You claim to be an organization of “home grown” and “grass roots people,” yet the vast majority of your membership own stations that impact regions or even operate on a national scale. You raise your banner championing localism, yet that really only applies if someone lives in the top 20 markets. You want to give the impression of vast reach when it suits your needs, but on the other hand want to be identified as the organization with a “local touch.”
Mr. Rehr, there is a reason that many organizations and groups are excited about a merger of Sirius and XM. Satellite radio has made it a point to carry diverse content. They have made an effort to fill needs that terrestrial radio has left unmet for decades. Even when the opportunity for terrestrial radio to meet those needs arose with low powered FM, the NAB and their membership have fought it tooth and nail.
Simply stated, the NAB is all about those top 20 markets, and maintaining a control over the content heard. The NAB membership wants to maintain the tired and outdated business model that fills 25% to 30% of the time on the air with advertisements and station bumpers.
How long do you expect people to remain fools to your agenda? When there was no other choice, you had your way with consumers. Now, faced with competition from I-Pods, satellite, and cell phones, you want to cry foul at every turn. The problem with your membership is that consumers found what they consider to be better alternatives, and your membership was slow to react. The years of living high on the hog for the NAB membership off of the backs of consumers is changing, and your membership does not like it. Not only that, NAB members are ill prepared to adjust their business to new market conditions. The NAB solution is to make sure there is no competition.
Well Mr. Rehr, I have news for you…….LOCAL and NATIONAL news. There is competition. There is a better way to treat consumers. There is the ability for consumers to get what they want from other sources, be it I-Pods, satellite, or cell phones with audio capability. Consumers now have choices. You should get used to the idea. There are outlets for minorities to get the content that you have failed to deliver for decades.
In your letter to Mel Karmazin you requested that he withdraw his application for a merger. I have a better suggestion. Why don’t you remove your foot from your mouth, or better yet, remove the clouds from your thinking? No longer will consumers listening ability be controlled by the membership of the NAB. No longer will consumers be forced into the limited choices and playlists that the NAB offers. No longer will consumers be sold a bill of goods about “local” content.
As the listenership of terrestrial radio drops, you have two choices. You can see what it is that consumers really want and try to offer it, or you can try to beat down that competition in every way. Your agenda is clear. You would rather wipe out competition than offer a product that consumers want. If you had the consumer at heart, you would not be going down the path that you are.
It is you Mr. Rehr that should withdraw your opposition to the proposed merger.
Sincerely,
Tyler Savery (and any other person who sees what you are doing)
Position – Long Sirius, Long XM
It will amaze me if this merger doesn’t go through. Everything the NAB has done from the beginning of the process till the present shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sat Rad is indeed competition to terrestrial and vice versa . I hope that the FCC and DOJ employees don’t have their heads so far up the NAB’s collective butts and so far into the NAB’s collective pockets that they can see this . It isn’t hard to see if your view isn’t obstructed !
Very well written letter, I am quite impressed!
Tyler, please tell me something. I noticed inthe FCC filing that initial comments are due on one day, and responses are due on others. Is the public allowed to respond to acusations made in other comments? Specifically, could you write a rebuttal to any of the NAB poster children’s paid “independant” research?
I am interested in doing this. The NAB has gone too far.
Brian R.
My apologies. I misread your comment. I took it as you wanted to have some comment on the reports that the NAB has already submitted. You can indeed comment on those right now.
The best type of response carries your opinion regarding the merger in the first sentance, followed by your comments relative to NAB, C3SR, etc.
The Pleading Cycle process can be a long and drawn out process — similar to the FCC Rulemaking Process. It is a very specific process used to allow all sides the chance to participate and have their say.
Initially, XM and Sirius filed their joint consolidated application to transfer the licenses — and that the “condition” forbidding them to merge was no longer relevant. The FCC put the application on public notice — and allowed comments to be filed about the application via Ex Parte rules. After review of the application and the comments, the FCC accepting the application and moved it to the next step — which is the pleading cycle process.
Now, the FCC established a 30 day comment period, which will allow any interested party (or consumer) to file an informal “comment” on the intentions of the application. It also will allow the more formal process of filing a “Petition” (typically a Petitition to Deny).
After the initial 30 day period, there is another 2-week period allowing “responses” to be filed. These informal responses can be to any comment or petition filed in the intial period. Interested parties can also follow the more formal process and file an “opposition” to any petition filed in the initial part of the cycle.
While the FCC may consider “comments” and “responses” — it usually concentrates more on the more formal “petitions” and “oppositions”, in their proceedings. The NAB and their hired lobbyists will all be filing formally. As will XM/Sirius and their hired lobyists too. Consumer groups will likely follow that route as well. Typically, consumers do the more informal thing — though they are NOT barred from filing formal petitions.
But this is only the beginnning. If during the initial pleading cycle the FCC decides that the NAB or another group has raised considerable question about the application, they may (likely will) establish a second pleading cycle focusing on the new questions raised.
This can go on for several months — and likely will. Just like the initial rulemaking process for DARS which lasted a couple years, IIRC.
As for the FCC allowing the consolidated license transfer application to proceed as is… Since there are so many licenses at stake here between the two companies — they filed a consolidated application that combines everything from the two companies into one application… thus the term “consolidated”. Frankly, the FCC had no reason to not allow it. The comments filed via Ex Parte rules were just a part of the process — but it was unlikely the FCC would stop it at that point, regardless of those comments. As long as they filled out the transfer application correctly — and since there was no “formal” rule barring them from merging, the FCC had no reason to prevent the consolidated application from moving forward. And given the complexity and implications of this merger — they were likely going to keep the consolidated application together as is, rather than review any of it seperately. With a merger this big, the FCC just about never deny’s the consolidated application from being filed as is.