Satellite Radio (Sirius/XM) Ping List
Freepmail me to be added.
Posted on 03/30/2007 1:08:45 PM PDT by It Aint Easy
A study sent yesterday to the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice demonstrates that the proposed merger between XM and Sirius would create a monopoly, constituting a likely violation of the antitrust laws.
Conducted by one of the country's leading economists and scholars, the study lends concrete evidence and analysis to some of the most important questions that have plagued lawmakers since the merger was announced earlier this year.
As lawmakers on Capitol Hill began to focus increasingly on what the relevant product market is for satellite radio and what impact this merger would have on consumers, the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio ("C3SR") -- the only group solely dedicated to protecting the interests of the over 14 million satellite radio subscribers in the United States -- approached J. Gregory Sidak of Criterion Economics, L.L.C to prepare an expert declaration analyzing the likely competitive impact of the proposed merger of XM and Sirius.
Specifically, Sidak, a former Deputy General Counsel for the FCC, was asked to determine whether subscription-based satellite digital audio radio services ("SDARS") are a relevant product market for antitrust purposes, and to assess the unilateral pricing effects of the proposed merger in the relevant product market.
Major Findings of the Criterion Study:
*Distinct Market: SDARS are a distinct antitrust product market.
*Anti-Competitive: The proposed merge would be anti-competitive as (i) it constitutes a monopoly under the most reasonable market definition; and (ii) even under a more expansive market definition the proposed merger would increase seller concentration ratios to unacceptably high levels.
*Consumer Benefit: The majority of efficiencies identified by XM and Sirius would not benefit consumers.
*Consumer Welfare: The conditions offered by XM and Sirius would not preserve consumer welfare.
The study took into account competition from other audio products such as MP3 players and Internet radio, and determined that satellite radio is a distinct product market for antitrust analysis. Even when the product market is expanded to include AM, FM and HD radio, the proposed XM-Sirius merger still raises serious antitrust concerns.
"Regardless of the definition, a satellite radio merger still has an antitrust component that must be thoroughly examined by the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission," said Sidak. "No matter how you slice it, dice it or package it, the merger of XM and Sirius would establish a monopoly, which are typically characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide, as well as a lack of viable substitute goods."
The results of the study give subscribers further cause for concern about the future of their satellite radio service and strongly suggest that Sirius-XM would have the incentive and opportunity to raise prices and cut programming. "This study confirms, empirically, what we have been stressing since before this merger was even announced: subscribers do not view their satellite radio service as a substitute for other forms of entertainment, and a merged provider would be able and motivated to raise prices and cut back the programming that so many listeners value and depend on," said Chris Reale, a founder of C3SR.
The study could prove to be an important component for Congress, the FCC, and the DOJ in determining whether or not to approve Sirius and XM's merger proposal, as it addresses many of the questions posed by lawmakers in a series of hearings held earlier this month.
A complete copy of the Criterion study is available for download at http://www.c3sr.org/.
Clear Channel can own 1,200 radio stations in the U.S. that these two companies have to compete with, yet their merger is a monopoly?
How much competition will there be if one goes belly up!
If they don't merge, one or both of them will eventually go out of business because there will NEVER be an overwhelming demand for satellite radio because, in the end, it's just the same old non-interactive radio that Marconi invented.
Mobile broadband in some form, be it via satellite or WIFI, can do subscription radio and the rest of the Internet, and the technology is already being deployed.
Sirius and XM cost more than my dialup connection, and my dialup connection is a lot more useful.
I've been contemplating getting Sirius because it has the NFL over XM. I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts / recommendations.
I would bet a thousand dollars that this "group of law students" who had this study created is in some way associated with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).
This smells like a put up job.
Their basic argument is flawed - they claim satellite subscribers would be harmed when in fact for the same money they will get all the content from both services.
They are both losing money hand over fist and consolidation would allow economies of scale. They compete with local broadcasters, IPODs and cell phone musics services - there is plenty of competition.
John Ashcroft prostituted himself to XM before being rebuffed. He then chose to lobby on behalf of the NAB against the merger, which shows what a complete sellout scumbag Ashcroft really is. Pathetic and disgusting. What a whore. And I used to defend the guy. No more.
>>John Ashcroft prostituted himself to XM before being rebuffed. He then chose to lobby on behalf of the NAB against the merger, which shows what a complete sellout scumbag Ashcroft really is. Pathetic and disgusting. What a whore. And I used to defend the guy. No more.<<
I not please with the NABs position and I'm sorry to see Ashcroft working for them.
But it kind of sounds like you are describing someone setting up a new lobbying firm trying to find clients. That doesn't inherently bother me.
Um, what dictionary did they use for their study? I could have done the study for free at www.dictionary.com
I bet it took 20million dollars.
The Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio is a consumer group consisting of Sirius and XM subscribers. It is supported by the National Association of Broadcasters."
Consumer Coalition For Competition In Satellite Radio (C3SR) founding member Chris Reale actually works full time at Williams Mullen Strategies - the lobbying arm of the Williams Mullen law firm - whose communications practice is headed by Julian Shepard, who just happens to be a former assistant general counsel at the NAB.
When Corporate Crime Reporter confronted Reale about who is funding C3SR, he wouldn't say, but did admit that the NAB "supports" the group. Reale refuses to identify the nature of NAB’s support.
"If we were out there in the media telling people who funded us, it would detract from support from different groups," Reale said. "I didn’t think that was a wise course."
It depends on what kind of programming you would be listening to most. I've had XM since December 2001 and had Sirius for awhile. I much prefer XM. Others like Sirius.
Capitalism aint for the weak or foolish. It punishes poorly run companies and makes way for innovation and better run ones. Sirius has been poorly run since the beginning. When you think you are a big shot and act accordingly, the market place has a way of bringing you back to earth. Mr. Karmazian can cry all he wants, but a better management team with a more realistic view of the market can make two satellite providers successful. Don't waste a lot of time shedding tears for the executives, it's the investors who are getting screwed as Sirius stock heads toward $3.
Exactly - what are the Democrats going to do? Pass a law that requires XM (or Sirius) to stay in business?
Just one? I think you're being optimistic, dude. From what I've read, it's merger or bust for these companies.
And the antitrust laws kill off yet another innovative company. Thanks a million, Washington.
What about the dozen-or-so years XM was around, by itself, before the genesis of Sirius?
At least you knew he was working for the NAB. There are some big-name Beltway lawyers (I'll name Robert Bork for one) who pretend to be objective commentators about certain legal issues even while they collect handsome fees from people and/or companies who have a financial stake in those issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.