[pepsi_junkie]

They aren’t equal, thus only one satellite radio content provider is a monopoly.

So what if the merger is blocked and, say, XM goes out of business. Now Sirius is the only provider of Sat Radio, and thus by your definition a monopoly. So should the government step in and dismantle them?

[biff]

How about doing it the old fashioned way: last company standing buys the loser in bankruptcy for pennies on the dollar? That way all the execs and brokers do not make millions in fees and parachutes. Helps get rid of the chaffe.

[Spktyr]

And don’t forget that XM going out of biz instead of merging (in your scenario) means that a lot of people suddenly have pieces of electronics that are totally useless.

[SpaceBar]

That's an interesting question. My answer: A monopoly isn't a state of one provider without context. It's a state of one provider with a distinct history of anti-competitive behavior that allowed that monopoly to come into existence in the first place. Mergers are one such avenue, and why the government oversees them. So my answer would be "no", if one company fell by the wayside on a fair economic playing field, then a sole survivor wouldn't be a monopoly nor should it be subject to governmental anti-monopolistic intervention or punished simply for having good business sense.