# Sirius, Xm Set To Confirm Merger Plan



## fs123

 SIRIUS, XM SET TO CONFIRM MERGER PLAN TODAY 


Now there is no reason everyone shouldn't go out and get sat. radio. Hopefully this will not have to large of a impact on the monthly fees.


----------



## PooperScooper

I like the move, but having to wait at least 15 months? Even though there's nothing (I know of) on Sirius that I want to have it will make buying a car easier in the future.










larry


----------



## fs123

Well I have Sirius and Im just hoping that this all somehow goes through before baseball season starts


----------



## sholmes

Would this be a good time to buy a lifetime subscription? I'm thinking the monthly prices aren't likely to decrease so it may be a good idea to lock in your rates. Any thoughts?


----------



## bigcementpond




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sholmes* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Would this be a good time to buy a lifetime subscription? I'm thinking the monthly prices aren't likely to decrease so it may be a good idea to lock in your rates. Any thoughts?



I'm pretty sure the "lifetime" subscription is only for the lifetime of your radio, not you. Definitely read the fine print before locking that one in.


----------



## Rieper

Howard Stern is gonna jump off a friggin' bridge.


Now he has to make nice and friendly with his hated enemy!


Bwahahaha. I can picture it now, Opie and Anthony shaking hands with a reluctant Howard at the merger press conference.


----------



## fs123

^ I wouldn't be shocked if they ditch O&A all together now during a "restructuring" phase


----------



## mngmikes

this is going to suck and be good in different ways. the reason i went to sirius is because of content. so what is going to happen? hopefully keep most of sirius content and get the xm radios? who is taking lead though? since i purchased the lifetime from sirius they may cancel it if xm takes over.


----------



## AtHomeBoy_2000

How compatable are their technologies? I would imagine all XM radios would need at minimum a firmware upgrade to recieve Sirius content and vice versa.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fs123* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well I have Sirius and Im just hoping that this all somehow goes through before baseball season starts



Baseball 2008 if you are lucky. Did you read the article you linked?










larry


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AtHomeBoy_2000* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How compatable are their technologies? I would imagine all XM radios would need at minimum a firmware upgrade to recieve Sirius content and vice versa.



Hardware is incompatible. They would probably use just one, most likely, after a transition period.


larry


----------



## sholmes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigcementpond* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the "lifetime" subscription is only for the lifetime of your radio, not you. Definitely read the fine print before locking that one in.



It's not. A lifetime subscription allows for 3 radio upgrades but each upgrade includes a $75 fee. See here for details:

http://www.sirius.com/servlet/Conten...=1150907696769 


My concern is what the legalities are with canceling a lifetime subscription in the event of a merger.


----------



## RaveD

XM's technology is likely to be considered superior. The question is, can they repurpose the existing satellites to consolidate the bandwidth and offer one service? This would greatly increase the breadth of content and/or sound quality since many overlapping channels would be eliminated.


Still, we're 2-3 years away from any technology issues being ironed out, and by then both Sirius and XM technology will be even more obsolete.


As for O&A vs. Stern I seriously doubt that will be an issue at all. Notice the article didn't even mention O&A. They're still just a freckle on Stern's butt.


Sorry, couldn't resist...


But seriously, O&A could probably ditch satellite altogether and have a very nice career on testicular radio. How are their ratings lately? I haven't checked...


----------



## JimsArcade




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fs123* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ^ I wouldn't be shocked if they ditch O&A all together now during a "restructuring" phase



As a huge O&A fan, I've dreaded the announcement of a merger for some time. Stern is such a huge part of Sirius in terms of subscribership and his contract, that he probably would only have to say the word and the combined company would buy out O&A's contract without hesitation.


For me, the XM portion of their show is so much better that I'd hate to see it go.


----------



## Gary*w*

Deal is done!

From XM'S Website


----------



## felickz

So what am i gonna beable to switch from XM band to the Sirius band??


I hate XM, i have it in my acura(company car), their commercials on every channel are made by the same people and they are so lame it makes me want to vomit when i hear them. Channels suck on XM for rock music, they have no name personalities...


Sirius rock channels 20,21,28 (24 is good now too) i listen to when im not on Howard 100


Merger as equals is such a bad idea for sirius, give it another couple of years and they would be on top and running, i guess their debt caught up to them!


So either we are gonna lose channels or we are going to have to pay more, .... i dont see any good comming



And did xm seriously mention HD radio in their reasons for the merger??? Who in their right mind would pay for that crap, same testicle radio but now i get to hear their commercials in "HD" way to jump on the HD bandwagon, up next the HD cellphone with HIGH DEFINITION RECEPTION


----------



## Gary*w*

My wife has XM in her car and i've got sirius in mine and we each have a plug&play unit we can move around. I just wanna know what this is going to do to our collective bill?


----------



## Monty Williams

Isn't this at least the 3rd merger attempt, with the previous 2 being shot down by the FCC/gov't due to anti-trust/monopoly reasons? What makes them think the gov't is gonna approve the merger this time? I thought I read somewhere that there is a stipulation in their FCC licenses requiring a competitor in order to prevent a monopolistic situation for satallite radio.


I've been an XM subscriber for 3 years and I've never heard any Sirius programming but I think this merger is probably for the best. Hopefully we won't lose any content.


----------



## den110

I can't see this as good for Sirius. Sure they do have huge debts since signing Howard, but in a year their subscriber base will surpass XM. What is going to happen to the commercial free music? I understand that XM has commercials on some of their music channels. I don't mind commercials on Howards channels, but I'd be damned if I have to hear commercials on any music channel


----------



## SKoprowski

If somone would have told me a week ago Stern will be engaged and XM would merge with Sirius I wouldn't have believed it.


O&A is jumping ship now- it's over for them. I'm sure CBS will gobble them up and they will say goodbye to satellite- and I'm sure it will be ALL Stern's fault too.


----------



## jerrodshook

I agree with the comment on XM rock stations. I hated everyone of them, but can't get enough of Octane, Buzzaw, etc. Throw Stern and Bubba into the mix and I can't see any reason I would listen to anything from the XM side. It's surprising Mel decided to merge since they were so close to overtaking XM.


----------



## nuzzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *den110* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I can't see this as good for Sirius. Sure they do have huge debts since signing Howard, but in a year their subscriber base will surpass XM. What is going to happen to the commercial free music? I understand that XM has commercials on some of their music channels. I don't mind commercials on Howards channels, but I'd be damned if I have to hear commercials on any music channel




They'll ditch any of those channels from XM that have commercials...Karmazan is not a big fan of Clear Channel who is responsible for those commercials...


----------



## nuzzy

Lets not forget that this is an "announcement" and not an "approval" yet...this still has a LONG WAY to go...


----------



## mr stroke

if this happens is it considerd monopoly and will the FCC let them do it with out a second sat radio company to compete?


----------



## kgoetz97

I'm interested to see what happens with the new car installations. We're going to be buying a new truck this summer. I have Sirius in my Acura and would have preferred Sirius in our new truck, depending upon what we got. I know that some car makes like Infiniti and Audi let you choose what sat provider you get.


I'd really hate to have the hardware that is in our new truck (whatever that is) be worthless in less than a year when the new merged XM/Sirius combines their services.


----------



## den110




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nuzzy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> They'll ditch any of those channels from XM that have commercials...Karmazan is not a big fan of Clear Channel who is responsible for those commercials...




I hope you are right. I can't wait to hear what Howard is going to say about this tomorrow on his show










You know he is going to gloat.


----------



## nuzzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kgoetz97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm interested to see what happens with the new car installations. We're going to be buying a new truck this summer. I have Sirius in my Acura and would have preferred Sirius in our new truck, depending upon what we got. I know that some car makes like Infiniti and Audi let you choose what sat provider you get.
> 
> 
> I'd really hate to have the hardware that is in our new truck (whatever that is) be worthless in less than a year when the new merged XM/Sirius combines their services.




I think they'll stay pretty much the same hardware-wise and set up some sort of simulcasting between the two...


----------



## den110




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kgoetz97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm interested to see what happens with the new car installations. We're going to be buying a new truck this summer. I have Sirius in my Acura and would have preferred Sirius in our new truck, depending upon what we got. I know that some car makes like Infiniti and Audi let you choose what sat provider you get.
> 
> 
> I'd really hate to have the hardware that is in our new truck (whatever that is) be worthless in less than a year when the new merged XM/Sirius combines their services.




I seriously doubt any hardware whether installed in a new car or portable will be obsolete. I figure they would broadcast the new service to all XM and Sirius hardware units. They(both companies) would not abandon their subscribers.


----------



## barbie845

You guys got to look at the big picture. Sub count meant very little, both companies(especially Sirius) were bleeding money with no end in sight. It was either merge or fold in a year or so.


Ipods, HD radio, internet radio and the rest aren't going away. The competition was only going to get tougher.


A merger maybe their last chance.


----------



## fs123




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *den110* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hope you are right. I can't wait to hear what Howard is going to say about this tomorrow on his show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know he is going to gloat.



well youll have to wait a bit longer, Stern (as usual) is taking the entire week off


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fs123* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> well youll have to wait a bit longer, Stern (as usual) is taking the entire week off



I have no idea what he will gloat about. If this merger is approved who knows what that means for all of XM and Sirius contracts. Do they have to still honor them? Are there loopholes, possible buyouts.


Interesting stuff.


----------



## bigmark

Do you think that each receiver will be able to pick up the combined companies signals? I have an accord with XM, and I should would like to get Sirius through that, rather than having the dopey Sirius car kit.


----------



## dgotwals1

Mr. Stroke,

As far as a monopoly goes, I believe I heard that this wouldn't count because it is a service that provides content, not just programming from a different source (ie cable,satellite). I may be wrong on this but that is what I heard.


I am a huge Stern fan, but I wouldn't want to take off O&A just because. If their fans want to hear them, let them. Now, commercials on music channels, that is a different story.


----------



## barbie845

The way I understand it is that one company can NOT own 2 sat radio licenses. So they either have to get that rule changed, or drop one of their license. If they drop one then all the content will be either over XM's sats or Sirius's. So one receiver that picks up both signals may not be needed.


----------



## fs123

Well there is no way they will get rid of Stern since I believe he is directly responsible for this merger.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fs123* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well there is no way they will get rid of Stern since I believe he is directly responsible for this merger.




No, whats responsible for this merger are Ipods, High Def. radio, internet radio, soon to be wireless radio in cars. The audio competition became much stronger than XM or Sirius expected. And that competition will only get worse, XM and Sirius now realize that and are looking for a way out.


----------



## bigmark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The way I understand it is that one company can NOT own 2 sat radio licenses. So they either have to get that rule changed, or drop one of their license. If they drop one then all the content will be either over XM's sats or Sirius's. So one receiver that picks up both signals may not be needed.



So I wonder which units would pick up those signals - XM or Sirius? And, I don't think it would be fair to force people to purchase new radios - it's probably easier to have a software change on the sats.


----------



## jcrash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No, whats responsible for this merger are Ipods, High Def. radio, internet radio, soon to be wireless radio in cars. The audio competition became much stronger than XM or Sirius expected. And that competition will only get worse, XM and Sirius now realize that and are looking for a way out.



I would look towards video being the reason for the merger, not simply audio.


----------



## vitod

Hopefully, this will skyrocket the stock. I have both XM and Sirius. (fingers crossed.)


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigmark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So I wonder which units would pick up those signals - XM or Sirius? And, I don't think it would be fair to force people to purchase new radios - it's probably easier to have a software change on the sats.



I'm no expert, so this is just a guess. If they drop one license I think it would be Sirius. XM's sats are newer, in better position for reception, and XM's chipsets are smaller and run cooler.


So if a merger is approved I think they would replace Sirius units for free with XM's equipment. Or maybe there's a firmware upgrade for Sirius's equipment. I don't know. Until the FCC gives its OK, this all is just guessing.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jcrash* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would look towards video being the reason for the merger, not simply audio.



Could be, the point is the competition hit XM and Sirius HARD. And it's only going to get worse.


----------



## mr stroke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jcrash* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would look towards video being the reason for the merger, not simply audio.



Are you talking about video in cars? Becuase I really can't see a in car sat TV service working that well, will mom and average joe really put a sat tv service in there car?


----------



## Gary*w*

I read an article somewhere about two months ago about a european sat radio service that wanted to transmit video. Sounded as if they had a way to make it work.


----------



## ApoDoc

I wonder what is going to happen with Sirius Satellite Radio's stock price tomorrow?


----------



## J.H.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ApoDoc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I wonder what is going to happen with Sirius Satellite Radio's stock price tomorrow?



Good question I wonder myself. I also wonder why they wouldn't make such a big announcement on a trading day? Tells me that it may not be seen as a great thing by wall street but I am NO expert.


----------



## RAVEN56706

Zerohour and Pat..... join the revolution.. LMAOOOOO


----------



## Hubcap




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigmark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So I wonder which units would pick up those signals - XM or Sirius? And, I don't think it would be fair to force people to purchase new radios - it's probably easier to have a software change on the sats.



They are saying you will not be able to pick up xm if you have a sirius unit, and same with sirius if you own a xm unit. But they will be working on a unit that can get both services.


----------



## ApoDoc

Well being a day trader what I see happening tommorow is massive pre-market trading. XM will probably open up at $17.00 per share after the merger has been completed.


----------



## BuckNaked




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hubcap* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> They are saying you will not be able to pick up xm if you have a sirius unit, and same with sirius if you own a xm unit. But they will be working on a unit that can get both services.



So where does that leave me with my $250 Polk Audio reference tuner? Does it become an expensive paperweight?


----------



## Rysa4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BuckNaked* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So where does that leave me with my $250 Polk Audio reference tuner? Does it become an expensive paperweight?



Now theres a good question...


----------



## Daavo

This is not a 'merger' in the true sense - it smells more of a take-over or capitulation. XM concentrated more on technology as opposed to content. XM had a subscribership based in large part on being the OEM equipment in a vehicle. In other words people were not choosing XM for any reason other than it came with the car they wanted. The music channels, more or less, are relatively interchangeable although SIRIUS' channels are all commercial free. SIRIUS on the other hand concentrated on content such as Howard Stern which drew in about 5 million so far. There is nothing on XM that you cant get on SIRIUS or elsewhere but the same cannot be said vice versa. On the other hand SIRIUS although experiencing rapid growth could upgrade its technology more quickly by absorbing XM and use its subscriber base numbers to achieve profitablility more quickly for the street. In any event the consumer wins if the merged company keeps its music channels free of commercials per the sirius model.


----------



## chuckaluck

"There is nothing on XM that you cant get on SIRIUS or elsewhere but the same cannot be said vice versa."??????


How about MLB being exclusive on XM? That, alone is why I have XM.


----------



## jonvall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fs123* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well there is no way they will get rid of Stern since I believe he is directly responsible for this merger.



This is 100% correct! If XM signed Stern NOBODY would know what that "other" sat company was that went out of business with 600,000 subs!


I can't wait for the day that O&A suck up to Howard just like Bubba did because they're going to be put on Howard 101! ROFL!


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chuckaluck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "There is nothing on XM that you cant get on SIRIUS or elsewhere but the same cannot be said vice versa."??????
> 
> 
> How about MLB being exclusive on XM? That, alone is why I have XM.





MLB is generally recognized as a regional sport and local games are usually carried on traditional radio. However, if you listen to out of town games then i guess that you are correct. There is no doubt however, that you are in the minority. Most people watch on tv or listen to their regional team.


----------



## BZiggyZ

What does this mean for content? Is there enough capacity to consolidate the similar music channels but leave all of the sports and talk channels alone? It would be great to have Stern, O&A, NFL, MLB, and NHL all in tact on the new station.


----------



## nuzzy

I'm betting that if the merger is successful, we will have to pay extra for sports packages, similar to MLB:EI and NFL:ST...


----------



## gary cornell

Go figure, i ordered the $250 Polk last Fri. and it arrives tomorrow. Now i have 30 days to decide if i want to keep it. Bought it for MLB and PGA Tour radio which is only on XM.


Getting Sirius channels on the Polk would be a bonus but right now the question is will the Polk continue to play XM in future years?


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> MLB is generally recognized as a regional sport and local games are usually carried on traditional radio. However, if you listen to out of town games then i guess that you are correct. There is no doubt however, that you are in the minority. Most people watch on tv or listen to their regional team.



Huh? Americans are very mobile -- they move around the country at a fairly high rate. But most people tend to keep the sports team allegiances that they grew up with so they are tons of fans who's favorite team is not carried by a local station. Think Cubs and Yankee fans in Florida. And baseball is one sport that does quite well on radio -- probably because it's easy to visualize events from an announcer's description. Unlike the other sports, the action is mostly channeled into the small area of the base paths. But even the other sports have a market with fans who live away from their favorite team's markets and are driving during game time.


One of my favorite XM channels is Cinemagic -- which doesn't have an equivalent on Sirius. Plus, I've found XM to have deeper playlists which I like. I don't need to hear the big hits over and over again since I usually have the CD's already. What I want is the non-singles from albums I don't have in the musical genres I don't have many CD's in -- classical, movie soundtracks, Christian pop, technopop, New Age, French singers, etc.


I also like the two XM HD channels -- the classical on 5.1 sounds great in my car.


I suspect that I won't like this merger. I'm not a Stern fan so I'm not really in the mood to pay more for my monthly subscription just so he can get a few hundred million dollars more. For that matter, I don't like paying for Oprah or O&A either. It's music I want.


Finally, if my radio becomes obsolete, then I'll definitely drop my subscription. I paid a lot for the Sky-Fi 2, I am not going to buy a new radio just because XM and Sirius went nuts on a talent spending war.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have no idea what he will gloat about. If this merger is approved who knows what that means for all of XM and Sirius contracts. Do they have to still honor them? Are there loopholes, possible buyouts.
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff.



Since this is a merger, not a bankruptcy, all contracts of the two partners will still be valid -- assuming there wasn't special language in the original contracts voiding stuff in the event of a merger. However, I doubt that any attorney's for a sports league or bigger entertainer would have tolerated such a clause. It'd be much more likely that there might be buyout clauses in favor of the league/entertainer.


----------



## xzitony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonvall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the day that O&A suck up to Howard just like Bubba did because they're going to be put on Howard 101! ROFL!



Somehow I think they'll just do radio on their 30+ FM markets and leave sat rad behind and STILL have more listeners than Stern.


But that's just me.


----------



## jcrash




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr stroke* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are you talking about video in cars? Becuase I really can't see a in car sat TV service working that well, will mom and average joe really put a sat tv service in there car?




Yes, they have already demod the service, in my understanding.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In any event the consumer wins if the merged company keeps its music channels free of commercials per the sirius model.



The merged company may have no choice. Clear Channel was an original investor in XM. Their recently exercised right to have commercials on their four stations would carry over to the new merged entity. So SirXMius radio would have to provide Clear Channel with the same rights and stations. A buyout would be needed, but the odds are that Clear Channel would refuse since it's more about hindering satellite radio than money.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xzitony* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Somehow I think they'll just do radio on their 30+ FM markets and leave sat rad behind and STILL have more listeners than Stern.
> 
> 
> But that's just me.



As a major shareholder, Stern would probably insist on O&A's contract not being renewed if the merger occurs. He's neither shy about wielding power and his ego is too big. And O&A have other options again, so it's doubtful that they'd kowtow to stay on satellite ala John DeBella. In fact, going all terrestrial again would solve the 9 AM to 10 AM ratings problem for them. It's a pity, having those two shows rip on each other would definitely be good for subscriptions. Many people love having two sides rip each other part. It's sort of a modern gladiator contest.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr stroke* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are you talking about video in cars? Becuase I really can't see a in car sat TV service working that well, will mom and average joe really put a sat tv service in there car?



If it keeps the kids quiet, then parents will buy anything.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fs123* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well there is no way they will get rid of Stern since I believe he is directly responsible for this merger.



You're right, he is why they are so far in debt.


----------



## NV5655

I'm a happy XM subscriber, and hardly listen to Terestrial Radio at all now with their over repeated Crappy playlists. I just hope we don't loose music stations for talk or sports stations. One reason we like XM is because of the music choices. I could care less about Stern or Opie and Anthony...let alone sports playoffs.. So I probably won't listen to anything on the Sirius side







.


Oh, and yep, only 4 stations on XM have commercials. I hope that doesn't change with this merge. It started with one commercial, and after a recent listen, that idiotic Clear Channel monopoly upped it to three. Good thing that's not a station set that I listen too







.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Zerohour and Pat..... join the revolution.. LMAOOOOO



Yeah.........okay


----------



## David Guill

My two cents tells me that if they are allowed to merge there will be big changes coming. Expect a reduction in the number of sat-radio "personalities", commercials and an increase in their service fees.







I don't suspect this merger will be too kind to subscribers.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chuckaluck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "There is nothing on XM that you cant get on SIRIUS or elsewhere but the same cannot be said vice versa."??????
> 
> 
> How about MLB being exclusive on XM? That, alone is why I have XM.



What about non-repetive top forty BS? For me that's part of the reason for going with Sat. I don't want just FM radio without the commercials.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonvall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is 100% correct! If XM signed Stern NOBODY would know what that "other" sat company was that went out of business with 600,000 subs!
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the day that O&A suck up to Howard just like Bubba did because they're going to be put on Howard 101! ROFL!



I doubt that will happen. Unfortunately, however, I doubt O&A will be on Sat if the merger goes through because Howie will have enough pull to have them silenced, yet again.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!


THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HOWARD IS GOING TO DUMP O&A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HOWARD IS GOING TO DUMP O&A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WAHHH!!!!!!!!!! WAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Who cares?!


This so-called "merger" at least does one thing for me.


It causes me to keep my Audiovox PNP2, and NOT UPGRADE at all until this is settled in the next 12-18 months.


Maybe I will switch my current 1-year pre-paid to go month by month, just to allow me to get out if I don't like what I see where this is going.


Boy, is this going to be fun watching the O&A clan, and Stern clan SPEW out there words of "LOVE" for each other over the next year and a half.


At least for me(and I like Stern. To most that is obvious her).


I just can't wait too see how much credit(TOO MUCH, which he will give himself), and BLAME(O&A fans are going to blame him when they leave satellite behind, his doing or not, LET THE CONSPIRACY BEGIN, because he FORCED THEM out.) he gets.


Of course, he is too blame for all this. He destroyed satellite radio.


I will just sit back and LMAO while I read the thousands of upcoming posts between the two REGIMES.


GOOD LUCK TOO BOTH AND COME OUT FIGHTING AT THE BELL!

*DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *STEELERSRULE* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> HOWARD IS GOING TO DUMP O&A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> HOWARD IS GOING TO DUMP O&A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> WAHHH!!!!!!!!!! WAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> Who cares?!
> 
> 
> This so-called "merger" at least does one thing for me.
> 
> 
> It causes me to keep my Audiovox PNP2, and NOT UPGRADE at all until this is settled in the next 12-18 months.
> 
> 
> Maybe I will switch my current 1-year pre-paid to go month by month, just to allow me to get out if I don't like what I see where this is going.
> 
> 
> Boy, is this going to be fun watching the O&A clan, and Stern clan SPEW out there words of "LOVE" for each other over the next year and a half.
> 
> 
> At least for me(and I like Stern. To most that is obvious her).
> 
> 
> I just can't wait too see how much credit(TOO MUCH, which he will give himself), and BLAME(O&A fans are going to blame him when they leave satellite behind, his doing or not, LET THE CONSPIRACY BEGIN, because he FORCED THEM out.) he gets.
> 
> 
> Of course, he is too blame for all this. He destroyed satellite radio.
> 
> 
> I will just sit back and LMAO while I read the thousands of upcoming posts between the two REGIMES.
> 
> 
> GOOD LUCK TOO BOTH AND COME OUT FIGHTING AT THE BELL!
> 
> *DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Wow, talk about stirring the pot.


----------



## TVOD

The merger has opposition from the NAB - no big surprise. It'll be interesting to see how much pull they have to derail this.


----------



## xzitony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LenSp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As a major shareholder, Stern would probably insist on O&A's contract not being renewed if the merger occurs. He's neither shy about wielding power and his ego is too big. And O&A have other options again, so it's doubtful that they'd kowtow to stay on satellite ala John DeBella. In fact, going all terrestrial again would solve the 9 AM to 10 AM ratings problem for them. It's a pity, having those two shows rip on each other would definitely be good for subscriptions. Many people love having two sides rip each other part. It's sort of a modern gladiator contest.



I absolutely agree, it'd be great radio. Hopefully Stern's ego realizes it. We'll see I guess. (P.S., Albany, NY needs to pick up the boys on FM immediately just in case...)


----------



## Daavo

Can we get real please? O & A do not merit a place in any conversation discussing the merits, pros or cons of the merger. Their name shouldn't be used in the same sentence as someone like Stern. I guarantee that the O & A name never came up once in the merger talks (as you can bet Stern, NASCAR and Oprah did) unless the XM guy mentioned what a complete waste of money the O & A contract was, how O & A caused zero new subscriptions, and how they were so inconsequential he didn't even care when their show was simulcast over free fm (where they get almost no ratings either). Seriously, I understand that O & A has some fans but lets be objective - they are a non-factor.


----------



## xzitony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can we get real please? O & A do not merit a place in any conversation discussing the merits, pros or cons of the merger. Their name shouldn't be used in the same sentence as someone like Stern. I guarantee that the O & A name never came up once in the merger talks (as you can bet Stern, NASCAR and Oprah did) unless the XM guy mentioned what a complete waste of money the O & A contract was, how O & A caused zero new subscriptions, and how they were so inconsequential he didn't even care when their show was simulcast over free fm (where they get almost no ratings either). Seriously, I understand that O & A has some fans but lets be objective - they are a non-factor.



Did anyone mention them as a factor in the merger-talks? Or is it just people speculating about what may come of them if the merger is approved?


I think it's the latter... I think you're the one giving them too much credit, no?


All I know is if my Squizz starts to sound like Octane I'll walk so fast..... and Squizz is sounding extra good tonight, too. Ill Nino, Skindred, Nonpoint, Tool...


----------



## Robert Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There is nothing on XM that you cant get on SIRIUS or elsewhere but the same cannot be said vice versa.




Is there Cinemagic on Sirius? Nope.


No Cinemagic, no Sirius for me...


----------



## fletch999

Every "merger of equals" that has ever happened isn't. Look at Chrysler.


WIth the new company being run by Mel Karmazin, this is as much a takeover as Daimler Benz taking over Chrysler.


And I doubt that Stern could care less whether Opie and Anthony stay or go or that he would wield any of his power to oust them. Why would he bother? He will, as someone already said, gloat and take a lot of credit for this move, and why not? Sirius went through the roof in new subs since he announced his coming over. His $500 million really has very little bearing on the debt load of Sirius, It really is a drop in the bucket that has paid off in spades.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> His $500 million really has very little bearing on the debt load of Sirius, It really is a drop in the bucket that has paid off in spades.



Actually from what I've read recently that price tag is over 700 mil. That sir is NOT a drop in the bucket. (PS-neither is 500 mil)


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is there Cinemagic on Sirius? Nope.
> 
> 
> No Cinemagic, no Sirius for me...



thats one ch...im looking forward to.


----------



## Brad Bishop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *den110* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt any hardware whether installed in a new car or portable will be obsolete. I figure they would broadcast the new service to all XM and Sirius hardware units. They(both companies) would not abandon their subscribers.



I hadn't thought about this but it makes the most sense. The satellites are already up there, just pick one for 'long term use' (the set of satellites you'll replace) and then only sell new radios for those. Then you play your hand at people upgrading/radios dying for the 'old' satellites and wait until the old satellites die out and transition the last few subscribers.


In the mean time you just broadcast the same service to both.


It seems like now would be a good time for them to announce their subscription plan changes for the merger (if it is to be approved). You could gain a good bit of public support for the merger if you did so both for the merger and in stores as a reassurance for people to continue to buy equipment.


No matter how you slice it, though, it's going to suck for someone in terms of programming. I recently bought XM radios because I got tired of Sirius with their DJ chatter. If they choose to keep the XM model (limited chatter - broader playlists) then I'm happy yet someone who likes the chatter is upset. If they choose to keep the Sirius model then someone else is happy and I'm upset.


When DirecTV/Dish Network were merging there was outcry. I don't see it with this, though, because most people simply don't care.


I guess it's just wait-and-see at this point, though, with a year+ of idle forum speculation.


----------



## joerod

What does this mean to the Sirius stock holders? And who is O&A?


----------



## RAVEN56706

i dont think they will hold onto O&A.... they will let them go because they are free now on free radio and Mel even stated how dumb a move that is....


----------



## vitod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joerod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What does this mean to the Sirius stock holders? And who is O&A?



Hopefully skyrocketing! I'm waiting for nice payday.


----------



## joerod

Same here! I just bought in about 6 weeks ago!


----------



## BZiggyZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i dont think they will hold onto O&A.... they will let them go because they are free now on free radio and Mel even stated how dumb a move that is....



Well if Mel even stated it then it must be true! The FUD in this forum rivals the Blu-Ray / HD DVD boards. Is this AVS or aintitcoolnews talk back?


Can someone speak to the capcity of the hardware? Can both channel lineups co-exist? This point in the press release makes it sound as if we will be able to customize our channel lineup:


* Greater Programming and Content Choices -- The combined company is

committed to consumer choice, including offering consumers the ability

to pick and choose the channels and content they want on a more a la

carte basis. The combined company will also provide consumers with a

broader selection of content, including a wide range of commercial-free

music channels, exclusive and non-exclusive sports coverage, news,

talk, and entertainment programming.*


----------



## joerod

I don't care about the FUD, only my stocks!


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i dont think they will hold onto O&A.... they will let them go because they are free now on free radio and Mel even stated how dumb a move that is....



Yeah, because except for that one comment Mel has always spoken so highly of XM in the past..


----------



## RAVEN56706

XM and O&A are two different things....not sure i would have made that move either but hey..... we shall see


----------



## Daavo

I doubt that O & A will be fired. Rather Mel K. will probably let their contract lapse. They are on free radio anyway so they bring nothing of value to a subscription based service. They will be given a choice of satellite only or free radio. Satellite won't pay them (what they will want) though because they haven't and continue to not draw in subscribers. A such they will choose free radio although their lack of ratings might be a problem there too.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I doubt that O & A will be fired. Rather Mel K. will probably let their contract lapse. They are on free radio anyway so they bring nothing of value to a subscription based service. They will be given a choice of satellite only or free radio. Satellite won't pay them (what they will want) though because they haven't and continue to not draw in subscribers. A such they will choose free radio although their lack of ratings might be a problem there too.



Their sat show actually brings quite a lot to the sub based service, it is a very different show than on FM.

Regarding your claim that they have not drawn subscribers, what is your source for your information? Perhaps you meant to add "in my opinion" and just forgot.


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Their sat show actually brings quite a lot to the sub based service, it is a very different show than on FM.
> 
> Regarding your claim that they have not drawn subscribers, what is your source for your information? Perhaps you meant to add "in my opinion" and just forgot.




my understanding is that there is no identifiable bounce in subscriptions of any significance following their xm contract. but i read the same stuff i am sure that you do. in any event xm would not have let them be non-exclusive to satellite if same wasn't the case. i am not suggesting they have no popularity, they do, but it is aa limited one and not enough to make any difference from a business sense (IMO).


----------



## RAVEN56706

see thats where i am seeing it... like it would be different if they were on just satellite but they give a taste of both and i am sure if they left, xm wont lose many subcribers...they probably wont get fired but i doubt they will rework their contract...


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> see thats where i am seeing it... like it would be different if they were on just satellite but they give a taste of both and i am sure if they left, xm wont lose many subcribers...they probably wont get fired but i doubt they will rework their contract...



exactly


----------



## G-star

well, i for one hope O&A don't leave XM. i was a long time fan of Stern and O&A, and just found their show to be better than Stern's, so I went with XM. i know they'll be on terrestrial radio too, but the XM part of the show is better.


all this Stern/OA bashing back and forth is pretty childish. you'd think some people have a vested interest in the respective shows how they beat their chest about their hero(s).


----------



## joerod

babbabooey!


----------



## RaveD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LenSp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As a major shareholder, Stern would probably insist on O&A's contract not being renewed if the merger occurs. He's neither shy about wielding power and his ego is too big.



Spoken like a true O&A fan...


I don't see it happening. Stern doesn't hate O&A as much as O&A would have you think. It's the other way around. Stern had feuds with Bubba the Love Sponge and brought him to Sirius anyway.


As a major shareholder, Stern wants to see satellite radio succeed. If O&A can help draw subscribers then why not keep them.


Unfortunately that's a big "if". O&A have not proven they can increase subscriber numbers significantly. Personally I think they will forego satellite and focus on continuing to grow their market in "old fashioned" radio. It's _their_ egos that need fuel, not Stern's. He has nothing left to prove.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G-star* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> all this Stern/OA bashing back and forth is pretty childish. you'd think some people have a vested interest in the respective shows how they beat their chest about their hero(s).



I agree, glad it's mostly the Stern fans doing the bashing


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaveD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true O&A fan...
> 
> 
> I don't see it happening. Stern doesn't hate O&A as much as O&A would have you think. It's the other way around. Stern had feuds with Bubba the Love Sponge and brought him to Sirius anyway.
> 
> 
> As a major shareholder, Stern wants to see satellite radio succeed. If O&A can help draw subscribers then why not keep them.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately that's a big "if". O&A have not proven they can increase subscriber numbers significantly. Personally I think they will forego satellite and focus on continuing to grow their market in "old fashioned" radio. It's _their_ egos that need fuel, not Stern's. He has nothing left to prove.



Very true. Whats also true is that it is now obvious Stern,NASCAR, etc. couldn't save Sirius. Nor could O&A,MLB,etc. save XM.


If this merger is approved it is going to be interesting to see what happens with all these big expensive contracts.


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree, glad it's mostly the Stern fans doing the bashing



no one is 'bashing' O & A - this is a discussion about the merger and O & A's name came up - its not bashing to point out truths (or opinions) of their worth to the combined company - its not bashing to point out the obvious - that XM doesn't value, the pair or they wouldn't have let them simulcast over free radio - you like them ok good for you - but the question is if you don't have satellite already would you buy it to get an extra hour or so of O & A programming a day. Honest answer has to be probably not. That's the only point. Subcriptions drive the revenue of these companies so if you can't drive the revenue (enough to pay for your contract and give the company profit ) then you have to go or take a pay cut - when stern signed sirius was at 800,000 (1.5 years ago) now they are at about 6 million - if you attribute only 3 million to Stern his 5 year contract is paid for in about 13 months.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> if you attribute only 3 million to Stern his 5 year contract is paid for in about 13 months.



You're vastly oversimplifying both Stern and Sirius's financials but I'll let some else handle this...


----------



## Whit27

Is that Howie Math? Last time I checked recently everything Stern is doing has been a flop.

His Payperview Service for seeing the Radio show on TV has been a bust and been pulled from many markets already... Plus no where does Sirus say that Stern is the reason for the all of the SUBS coming over... I would say he might be responsible for 1.5 Mil but that is just my opinion.

Both companies have seen the SUBS go up each year... and O&A since joining XM have seen the SUBS from from 3mill to just under 7 Mill... So according to Howie Math they would responsible for that increase correct?


I find it funny that just because Stern is on Sirus people assume thats why everything has gone up....

XM has stated publicly that XM 202 The Virus is the most Popular channel in the stable of channels. Says alot.... Doesn't it....


As for O&A and Ron & Fez doing stuff on Free FM... Its free advertising for XM and people also who have XM get to here anything that gets dumped out on.... Big advantage there...


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> no one is 'bashing' O & A - this is a discussion about the merger and O & A's name came up - its not bashing to point out truths (or opinions) of their worth to the combined company - its not bashing to point out the obvious - that XM doesn't value, the pair or they wouldn't have let them simulcast over free radio - you like them ok good for you - but the question is if you don't have satellite already would you buy it to get an extra hour or so of O & A programming a day. Honest answer has to be probably not. That's the only point. Subcriptions drive the revenue of these companies so if you can't drive the revenue (enough to pay for your contract and give the company profit ) then you have to go or take a pay cut - when stern signed sirius was at 800,000 (1.5 years ago) now they are at about 6 million - if you attribute only 3 million to Stern his 5 year contract is paid for in about 13 months.



First, go back and read there's been some bashing, not a big deal, kinda fun to read. Second: Not an extra hour or so, 2-3 hours and Yes many would and do subscribe for that reason. (IMO)


----------



## xzitony

The truth is O&A have their eggs in quite a few baskets (cbs, citadel, XM, audible, paltalk) so ya, at this point anything can happen-- in a year-- at least. Speculation is fun though.


Hey, Raven, do you think Mel will keep O&A?


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whit27* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> .. Plus no where does Sirus say that Stern is the reason for the all of the SUBS coming over... I would say he might be responsible for 1.5 Mil but that is just my opinion...




the reality is that sirius was plodding along with under a million subs before he was signed... upon his signing the surge was immediate...to suggest that he is only responsible for 1.5 mill new subs is ludicrous...is your argument that it is just coincidence that in the one year since hes been there everyone decided to go with sirius instead of XM as they had been previously doing up until that point.. nothing changed with sirius except getting stern... as far as xm is concerned they get their subs mainly from oems in vehicles its not a content choice. sirius sells (mainly) from people actually choosing the product...people were not choosing sirius over xm until stern came along. he joined that changed.


i don't understand why just because you are an O & A fan you can't be objective.


----------



## joerod

Everything Stern has done has been a bust?














That's the funniest line yet!


----------



## joerod

Wasn't O&A fired because of lack of listeners on their last job?


----------



## Whit27




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joerod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Wasn't O&A fired because of lack of listeners on their last job?



Umm they weren't fired from the last job because of lack of Listeners... What are you talking about??? Infinity suspended them with pay for 2 years because of the Sex for Sam thing.... Only reason they were suspended was MEL was worried they would walk across the street and compete against Stern. Thats a proven fact...


As for being a Fan of O&A doesn't mean I can't be objective... I am just sick of this Stern crap about how is the reason Sirus is doing the numbers now.


I for one thing choice is a good thing... and this merger takes that away from me... But I am also against business not being able to do what they want... and if a Merger is what they want then give it to them... So I am stuck in the middle.... I love my XM not only for O&A but also for the Music... BIG TRAXS, Flight 26, SQUIZZ, ETHEL, 70's and 80's.... The Blues Channels are great also... WaterColors another great channel...


I made a choice over 2 years ago to get XM and I hope that I will still have that choice in 12 months down the road...

I don't want to be forced to listen to content that I decided against years ago.


Cheers

Whit


----------



## Gary*w*

The CEO of XM was just on CNBC. He was talking about an ala carte pricing structure after the merger. So if you wanted MLB, Nascar, NFL ect. you could get just those services.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The merger has opposition from the NAB - no big surprise. It'll be interesting to see how much pull they have to derail this.



The NAB's previous arguments to the FCC regarding satellite radio may end up hurting them in the long run. While arguing that the satellite companies shouldn't be exempt from FCC content restrictions they argued that satellite radio was a competitor to broadcast radio. That being the case, it's hard to now convincingly make the opposite argument that a merger of XM & Sirius would be a monopoly. Based on their original argument, the merged company wouldn't be a monopoly unless they also bought out all broadcast radio stations as well.


----------



## HDKing

I got XM cause it came with my new car. As long as I don't have to install a new radio, I'll continue to subscribe.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joerod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Wasn't O&A fired because of lack of listeners on their last job?



I believe they were fired for some stunt that included sex in a church...

they also were doing very well on afternoon drive for WNEW,NY....


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I doubt that O & A will be fired. Rather Mel K. will probably let their contract lapse.



Their current contract runs through either 2010 or 2011. They initially had a series of 1 year contracts with XM. But after the first year, XM locked them in with a new 5 or 6 year contract.


Mel could do the same thing that he did last time and cancel their show, but continue to pay their contracts until they run out. But there's no point in letting their contract lapse with the goal of getting rid of them. By the time that O&A's contract is over, so will Howard's. Does anyone really believe that Howard will continue to work after the completion of this contract with all of the money that he has made off of Sirius?


----------



## Gary*w*

The XM CEO also said on CNBC that they wouldn't have entered into a merger aggreement unless they had a reasonable expectation that it would pass regulatory muster.


----------



## barbie845

I said this before, and I'll say if again. If the merger is approved is it written in stone that the new merged company has to honor any of these contracts? I'm no lawyer, so I'm just asking.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary*w** /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The XM CEO also said on CNBC that they wouldn't have entered into a merger aggreement unless they had a reasonable expectation that it would pass regulatory muster.



I think Mel put the chances at 'a little better than 50-50..


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I said this before, and I'll say if again. If the merger is approved is it written in stone that the new merged company has to honor any of these contracts? I'm no lawyer, so I'm just asking.



bankruptcy = no

merger= yes


I think


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Whit27* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Only reason they were suspended was MEL was worried they would walk across the street and compete against Stern. Thats a proven fact...



That's not a "proven fact". In fact, O&A have said that Infinity had offered to allow them to get out of their contract under the condition that they never talk about any Infinity employees, past or present on the air or else they would have to pay Infinity $100K for each "infraction". O&A rejected that "offer".


The "walk across the street" story was when O&A signed their contract extension when they were at WNEW. Supposedly, they had an offer from Clear Channel to do mornings against Stern in NYC with a promise for syndication. After Infinity made O&A their offer, O&A's agent told them thanks, but no thanks, we'll go to mornings on Clear Channel. Infinity then offered them a contract that was 10x the amount of their first contract with a promise of syndication in the top 20 cities that Infinity had a station.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If the merger is approved is it written in stone that the new merged company has to honor any of these contracts?



Of course they do. The merged company would assume all liabilities of both companies.


----------



## RAVEN56706

yah... nothing is put in stone.... of course.... hey if mel keeps then... then he keeps them. hey... if stern was half and half, i wouldnt want to keep him... i would want his program exclusively.... but i just had a problem with the deal and not with them


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> bankruptcy = no
> 
> merger= yes
> 
> 
> I think



Yeah, I 'think' so too. But Bill seems sure that the new company has to assume all of both companies liabilities.


But damn unless I'm thinking of something different I seem to remember mergers in the past where the new company broke contracts and promises. But maybe I'm thinking of buyouts and/or bankruptcies. We'll see.


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Their current contract runs through either 2010 or 2011. They initially had a series of 1 year contracts with XM. But after the first year, XM locked them in with a new 5 or 6 year contract.
> 
> 
> Mel could do the same thing that he did last time and cancel their show, but continue to pay their contracts until they run out. But there's no point in letting their contract lapse with the goal of getting rid of them. By the time that O&A's contract is over, so will Howard's. Does anyone really believe that Howard will continue to work after the completion of this contract with all of the money that he has made off of Sirius?



If O& A are locked in for 5-6 years like you say I don't think he would fire O & A either but he wont pay them when their new contract is up (they currently garner almost negligeble ratings in NY on free radio).


As far Stern is concerned I think he would renew but it will cost big again. Will a publicly traded corp. allow another outlay like that even when it pays for itself or will they try to do the typical corporate move and live off the fat he generated and screw their customer base? Interesting. IMO he's enjoying this now and will want to stay. It can't be just about the money for guy like that its gotta be about being in the game.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, I 'think' so too. But Bill seems sure that the new company has to assume all of both companies liabilities.
> 
> 
> But damn unless I'm thinking of something different I seem to remember mergers in the past where the new company broke contracts and promises. But maybe I'm thinking of buyouts and/or bankruptcies. We'll see.



Mercury essantially said the same thing that I did. There is no talk of either company declaring bankruptcy that would potentially free them from any of their obligations.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> IMO he's enjoying this now and will want to stay. It can't be just about the money for guy like that its gotta be about being in the game.



If he was enjoying work, why would he be taking 12 weeks off and only working a 4 day week on the weeks that he does work?


IMO, once this contract is up, he's gone.


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If he was enjoying work, why would he be taking 12 weeks off and only working a 4 day week on the weeks that he does work?
> 
> 
> IMO, once this contract is up, he's gone.



lol. i think what you said is probably part of the reason he is enjoying it.

would'nt you like to work 4 days a week and have lots of vacation?


----------



## joerod

Oh yeah! I could live working just a few days a week!!!


----------



## dmedina

I received an email from XM today about the merger. Anyone else get one... and did any Sirius subscribers get an email notice?


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dmedina* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I received an email from XM today about the merger. Anyone else get one... and did any Sirius subscribers get an email notice?




i got one from sirius


----------



## joerod

Sure did! And it had Mels sig on it!


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joerod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sure did! And it had Mels sig on it!



Save it, it might be worth some money someday..


----------



## Daavo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, I 'think' so too. But Bill seems sure that the new company has to assume all of both companies liabilities.
> 
> 
> But damn unless I'm thinking of something different I seem to remember mergers in the past where the new company broke contracts and promises. But maybe I'm thinking of buyouts and/or bankruptcies. We'll see.





Generally a merged company has to assume the debts and liability of the pre-existing companies which form the new entity, as such they would have to honor the existing contracts (pay them) - you have indicated that you recall situations in the past where newly merged corps have "broke contracts and promises" - that is a different situation - any party to a contract can "break" a contract at any time, however, that doesn't free them from the obligations of the contract - the breaching party will get sued on the contract terms.


----------



## Gary*w*

Yeah, I recived both the Sirius and XM e-mails


----------



## mercury

To: SIRIUS Subscribers


Today is a very exciting day for SIRIUS customers. As you may have heard, SIRIUS Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio are merging to form the nation's premier audio entertainment provider.


This combination of our two offerings will benefit you - our loyal listeners. As a single company, we'll provide superior programming to you every day with the best of both SIRIUS and XM. Currently, XM and SIRIUS broadcast a wide range of commercial-free music channels, exclusive sports coverage, news, talk, and entertainment programming. Howard Stern. Oprah and Friends. The NFL. MLB. NBA. ESPN. CNBC. Fox News. Additionally, the combined company will be able to improve existing services such as real-time traffic information and rear-seat video as well as introduce new ones.


After shareholder and regulatory approvals, we anticipate that the combination will be finalized by the end of 2007. Until then, both companies will continue to operate independently. We will continue to provide you with the uninterrupted service - as well as the outstanding customer support - that you have come to expect and enjoy from SIRIUS. We do not anticipate any changes in your service during the merger process, however, please call our customer care team on 1- 888-539-7474 should you have any questions.


We look forward to the many benefits this combination will offer and continuing to make your listening experience an enjoyable one - offering more of the Very Best Radio on Radio.


Stay tuned,


Mel Karmazin, CEO


----------



## WSP1013




LenSp said:


> Huh? Americans are very mobile -- they move around the country at a fairly high rate. But most people tend to keep the sports team allegiances that they grew up with so they are tons of fans who's favorite team is not carried by a local station. Think Cubs and Yankee fans in Florida. And baseball is one sport that does quite well on radio -- probably because it's easy to visualize events from an announcer's description. Unlike the other sports, the action is mostly channeled into the small area of the base paths. But even the other sports have a market with fans who live away from their favorite team's markets and are driving during game time.
> 
> 
> I agree, also the fact that I can get MLB, NFL, and all other sports all under one plan will be great! I have both because of MLB and NFL. Huge sports fan!


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daavo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> lol. i think what you said is probably part of the reason he is enjoying it.
> 
> would'nt you like to work 4 days a week and have lots of vacation?



Yes. But I'd rather worn zero days a week and have 52 weeks of vacation. As soon as the deal that paid me hundreds of millions was up, I would retire.


People who like to work don't work short weeks and take lots of vacation.


----------



## Monty Williams

February 20, 2007



Dear XM Radio Subscriber:


We want to share with you some exciting news: Yesterday, in Washington

DC, we announced XM Radio will be merging with Sirius Satellite Radio

to form the premier digital audio service.


The merger will create a satellite radio company that will provide

consumers across the country with more and better premium radio

programming. The combined company will be able to compete better in what has

become a very complex and dynamic entertainment market.


Where today our exclusive contracts mean you had to choose between

baseball and football or Oprah and Martha Stewart, the new company will

seek to ensure that in the future, you will be able to access both

companies' programming. And, once we are fully integrated, those of you who

have factory-installed satellite radio will no longer be limited to the

programming provided by the exclusive satellite radio service chosen by

their car manufacturer.


This merger should be completed in late 2007 or early in 2008.

Throughout the year, we will provide updates on how the merger is progressing

and information will be available at our website, www.xmradio.com .


Between today and the merger date, as well as during the period

immediately after the merger date, all of your services will remain the same.

The channel lineup, the customer service number, the great music

technology, and the XM Radio web site will all remain unchanged and there

will be no disruption to service. But, if you have questions, information

will be available and maintained on our website, and you can contact

our Listener Care team at 800-XMRADIO, with questions and concerns.


XM Radio continues to be committed to providing you the highest quality

audio entertainment and customer service available today. After the

merger, our new company will be able to offer you the most exciting

listening experience in radio.


Sincerely,


Hugh Panero

CEO, XM Satellite Radio



Forward Looking Statements

This letter contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of

the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements

include, but are not limited to, statements about the benefits of the

business combination transaction involving Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.

and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., including potential synergies and

cost savings and the timing thereof, future financial and operating

results, the combined company's plans, objectives, expectations and

intentions with respect to future operations, products and services; and

other statements identified by words such as "anticipate," "believe,"

"plan," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "will," "should," "may," or words of

similar meaning. Such forward-looking statements are based upon the

current beliefs and expectations of SIRIUS' and XM's management and are

inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive

uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are difficult to predict

and generally beyond the control of SIRIUS and XM. Actual results may

differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking

statements.


The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to

differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations

expressed in the forward-looking statement: general business and economic

conditions; the performance of financial markets and interest rates; the

ability to obtain governmental approvals of the transaction on a timely

basis; the failure of SIRIUS and XM shareholders to approve the

transaction; the failure to realize synergies and cost-savings from the

transaction or delay in realization thereof; the businesses of SIRIUS and XM

may not be combined successfully, or such combination may take longer,

be more difficult, time-consuming or costly to accomplish than

expected; and operating costs and business disruption following the merger,

including adverse effects on employee retention and on our business

relationships with third parties, including manufacturers of radios,

retailers, automakers and programming providers. Additional factors that could

cause SIRIUS' and XM's results to differ materially from those

described in the forward-looking statements can be found in SIRIUS' and XM's

Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and

Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2006, June

30, 2006 and September 30, 2006 which are filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and available at the SEC's Internet

site www.sec.gov The information set forth herein speaks only as of the

date hereof, and Sirius and XM disclaim any intention or obligation to

update any forward looking statements as a result of developments

occurring after the date of this press release.


Important Additional Information Will be Filed with the SEC This

communication is being made in respect of the proposed business combination

involving SIRIUS and XM. In connection with the proposed transaction,

SIRIUS plans to file with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-4

containing a Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and each of SIRIUS and XM

plan to file with the SEC other documents regarding the proposed

transaction. The definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus will be mailed

to stockholders of SIRIUS and XM. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF

SIRIUS AND XM ARE URGED TO READ THE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND

OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY IN THEIR ENTIRETY WHEN THEY

BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT

THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION.


Investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of

the Registration Statement and the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus (when

available) and other documents filed with the SEC by SIRIUS and XM

through the web site maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov . Free copies of

the Registration Statement and the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus

(when available) and other documents filed with the SEC can also be

obtained by directing a request to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., 1221 Avenue of

the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Attention: Investor Relations or by

directing a request to XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., 1500 Eckington

Place, NE Washington, DC 20002, Attention: Investor Relations.


SIRIUS, XM and their respective directors and executive officers and

other persons may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of

proxies in respect of the proposed transaction. Information regarding

SIRIUS' directors and executive officers is available in its Annual Report

on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, which was filed with

the SEC on March 13, 2006, and its proxy statement for its 2006 annual

meeting of stockholders, which was filed with the SEC on April 21,

2006, and information regarding XM's directors and executive officers is

available in XM's Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December

31, 2005, which was filed with the SEC on March 3, 2006 and its proxy

statement for its 2006 annual meeting of shareholders, which was filed

with the SEC on April 25, 2006. Other information regarding the

participants in the proxy solicitation and a description of their direct and

indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, will be contained

in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and other relevant materials to

be filed with the SEC when they become available.


----------



## STEELERSRULE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Their current contract runs through either 2010 or 2011. They initially had a series of 1 year contracts with XM. But after the first year, XM locked them in with a new 5 or 6 year contract.
> 
> 
> Mel could do the same thing that he did last time and cancel their show, but continue to pay their contracts until they run out. But there's no point in letting their contract lapse with the goal of getting rid of them. By the time that O&A's contract is over, so will Howard's. Does anyone really believe that Howard will continue to work after the completion of this contract with all of the money that he has made off of Sirius?



I don't think he will either Bill.


But not only because of the above, but also:


1. He will be 57 years old at the end of this contract. And his youngest daughter(unless he has another with Beth O. He has strongly ruled against this, but then again, this is the same hypocrite who SWORE he would never get married again. Granted he is engaged, not married YET.) will be just finishing High School, and getting ready for college. His job as a parent, for the most part, will be complete.


2. Even though he has been REINVIGORATED because of the lack of rules/regulations, I still think he is growing "Tired" if you will. Especially the idea of having to get at 3:30AM-4:00AM to do a radio show. I think his vacation time shows this


3. He has NOTHING to prove to anyone, anyway, at this point. Just the fact that this is being discussed proves that point.


Howard has stated in the past that he "MIGHT" want to do afternoon radio towards the end, and that could be a STRONG possibility.


Although mornings are CLEARLY "where it is at" in regular radio, the same can not be held true for satellite radio, since they don't base their programming on "ratings", like regular terrestrial radio.


Granted, they make programming decisions based on if something proves to be extremely popular, or not, but this has been "MAINLY", not EXCLUSIVELY, limited too the music channels.


Personalities have been added, but not too many have been removed because of poor popularity/ratings.


If he(Howard) does re-up after the current contract, I can see it for a MAXIMUM of 3 years. Really, I don't think he wants to be doing this, ego or no ego, well into his 60's.


Also, he would probably switch to the afternoon drive, from like 3pm-8pm.


He has stated in the past that that was one of the great things about his job at NBC. Although he knew he would have to go to mornings to clobber Imus(because, again, mornings are where it is at in terrestrial radio. Not afternoons), he has always said he liked the idea of getting up late, and going to work in the afternoon, and not having to go to bed at 8pm-9pm just too get a goods night rest.


So if he does comeback after the contract, whicvh still look SLIM too me he would:


Be on in the afternoons.


Bubba or O&A, if they are still there, would do the morning drive.


He would do it for 3 more years.


They already backed the Brinks truck up for him once already, and he has made his F'YOU!! money 10 times over.


I doubt they would do it again.


In fact, I can almost 100% guarantee it.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaveD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true O&A fan...
> 
> 
> I don't see it happening. Stern doesn't hate O&A as much as O&A would have you think. It's the other way around. Stern had feuds with Bubba the Love Sponge and brought him to Sirius anyway.
> 
> 
> As a major shareholder, Stern wants to see satellite radio succeed. If O&A can help draw subscribers then why not keep them.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately that's a big "if". O&A have not proven they can increase subscriber numbers significantly. Personally I think they will forego satellite and focus on continuing to grow their market in "old fashioned" radio. It's _their_ egos that need fuel, not Stern's. He has nothing left to prove.



I'm not an O&A fan. Their show isn't that entertaining. But I do dislike them less than I do Stern -- I've pretty much found him pompous and unfunny ever since he first entered the Philly market. When I do want to listen to that type of DJ show (instead of music), I listen to Preston and Steve on WMMR on Philly terrestrial radio. But no DJ is worth me spending any money on. Music, on the other hand, is worth spending on. If this merger does go through, I'm definitely hoping for a music only option.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, I 'think' so too. But Bill seems sure that the new company has to assume all of both companies liabilities.
> 
> 
> But damn unless I'm thinking of something different I seem to remember mergers in the past where the new company broke contracts and promises. But maybe I'm thinking of buyouts and/or bankruptcies. We'll see.




You're definitely thinking of bankruptcies. Think of it this way. If a merger let the new combined company get out of contracts, then United Airlines could merge with Bob's Air Taxi Inc. (a one plane company), reissue new stock (with Bob getting a few thousand shares), and then void all their union contracts. Every major corporation would go nuts with this if they could.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *STEELERSRULE* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Although mornings are CLEARLY "where it is at" in regular radio



It's funny how much mornings dominate terrestrial radio even though both Rush and Hannity have built huge shows away from the 6 to 9 AM slot. Heck, Rush misses the commutes on both coasts. But radio is a very conservative business in that it really avoids doing different things at all costs. At least, until someone else finally does something new and everyone else jumps on the bandwagon.


----------



## G-star




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LenSp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> When I do want to listen to that type of DJ show (instead of music), I listen to Preston and Steve on WMMR on Philly terrestrial radio.



do you yell "Gadzooks!!" in your car on your way to work while listening to P&S?










c'mon...Howard and O&A are way better than these two hacks. even the respective haters of each show can agree on this one...


----------



## mr stroke

Anyone have any idea what the name will become?


Siriusxm?

or maybe just Sat radio?


any ideas?


----------



## WSP1013

Not to get off of O&A vs. Howard, but does anyone really think the FCC will let this happen? I know it's been brought up early in the thread but I really don't think they'll let a monopoly form again like Microsoft.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G-star* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> do you yell "Gadzooks!!" in your car on your way to work while listening to P&S?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c'mon...Howard and O&A are way better than these two hacks. even the respective haters of each show can agree on this one...



No. But I do find them funnier. Stern and O&A just don't amuse me. Both shows remind me of young kids making prank obscene calls and telling fart jokes. It's the lowest common denominator of humor. WOW and Sybian machines are pretty sad. But what makes both shows more annoying is that all three hosts are arrogant unlikeable jerk self-centered jerks. Narcissism is boring after about 30 seconds. Unless it's a hot girl. Then it's boring after 90 seconds.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WSP1013* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not to get off of O&A vs. Howard, but does anyone really think the FCC will let this happen? I know it's been brought up early in the thread but I really don't think they'll let a monopoly form again like Microsoft.



Over at CNET, one of the editors pointed out that the FCC refused to allow Dish Network and Direct TV to merge. That seems to be a fairly clear precedent that matches this situation closely. Though, I guess Sirius-XM could argue that terrestrial radio represents many companies in each market while cable TV was generally a monopoly in each market.


Though, it may mainly come down to how many Congress critters each side can "purchase". The other radio companies have a lot more cash to use for contributions. They have a lot more jobs at stake with more employees (and unions) to lobby with. They have a lot more on-air personalities to help the lobbying effort with politicians and listeners. Sirius-XM has Stern (with his much smaller audience than in the past) and the still small audiences of O&A's terrestrial markets.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> one of the editors pointed out that the FCC refused to allow Dish Network and Direct TV to merge. That seems to be a fairly clear precedent that matches this situation closely



I strongly disagree with that statement. I think there's very little comparison between pay TV and pay radio. IMO there's much more competition in the audio/radio field.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> If a merger let the new combined company get out of contracts, then United Airlines could merge with Bob's Air Taxi Inc.



I see your point, and you and Bill are right. That's exactly what the airlines have been doing, they've been using bankruptcy as their means to ditch union contracts, pensions ,etc.


----------



## Zerohour

Remember the board consists of 7 XM'ers and 5 Sirius members...and XM knows that O&A have the highest rated station on XM besides the decades channels....same with Howards channel....#2 to the decades channels.


NEITHER HOWARD NOR O&A will be fired, moved, changed...whatever. That's just bad business....no matter who you're a fan of, each has their audience and both audiences are pretty f**kin big. Suck it up if its hard to hear but its true. Just like a few years ago, both will be working for the same company - that doesnt mean they have to shake hands - and it doesnt matter....subs are subs no matter what reason you have one. THEY WONT DO ANYTHING TO DIMINISH THAT.


Now can we stop with the O&A vs Howard...they're not even the same show...Howard's a shock jock and O&A are more of a 'comedic round table' with their constant 5-mic comedian shows.


----------



## David Guill

Has anyone seen in the letters from XM and Sirius that subscribers rate will not rise?







From what I have seen so far, they talk about this increase in service but never mention subscriber rates.


I think this will be approved considering that it will give satellite radio a new lease on life.


----------



## WSP1013




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with that statement. I think there's very little comparison between pay TV and pay radio. IMO there's much more competition in the audio/radio field.



How can you compare pay radio with OTA radio. IMO they are like apples and oranges.


----------



## Zerohour




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Guill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen in the letters from XM and Sirius that subscribers rate will not rise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have seen so far, they talk about this increase in service but never mention subscriber rates.
> 
> 
> I think this will be approved considering that it will give satellite radio a new lease on life.



No mention yet, but I don't see why they would. With a merger, income doubles and debt halves...


----------



## RAVEN56706

i think this can make for interesting radio... imagine o&a on howard's show.... to be honest though, not sure how it will look when O&A get along with Howard.... they bad mouthed him so much that now they will probably work together... but then again, Bubba said the same thing to and works for howard so.... i guess it will work


----------



## Zerohour

I'm pretty sure they wont be shaking hands or appearing on each other show's. They did work together for clearchannel a few years ago and all was well though. I'm pretty sure they will co-exist for the sake of the subs, but not acknowlegde each other.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zerohour* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Remember the board consists of 7 XM'ers and 5 Sirius members...and XM knows that O&A have the highest rated station on XM besides the decades channels....same with Howards channel....#2 to the decades channels.
> 
> 
> NEITHER HOWARD NOR O&A will be fired, moved, changed...whatever. That's just bad business....no matter who you're a fan of, each has their audience and both audiences are pretty f**kin big. Suck it up if its hard to hear but its true. Just like a few years ago, both will be working for the same company - that doesnt mean they have to shake hands - and it doesnt matter....subs are subs no matter what reason you have one. THEY WONT DO ANYTHING TO DIMINISH THAT.
> 
> 
> Now can we stop with the O&A vs Howard...they're not even the same show...Howard's a shock jock and O&A are more of a 'comedic round table' with their constant 5-mic comedian shows.



there NO QUESTION stern wont be moved.


I believe O&A will have to make a choice,FreeFM or Sat radio,not both.

and O&A would choose FreeFM,because they make more money.


----------



## RAVEN56706

thats what i think too... i mean xm hasnt grown that much with them on Free Fm... i dont know


if i were them i would choose free fm.... its more money


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zerohour* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they wont be shaking hands or appearing on each other show's. They did work together for clearchannel a few years ago and all was well though. I'm pretty sure they will co-exist for the sake of the subs, but not acknowlegde each other.



I believe that was Infinity.


lets keep in mind here that it's O&A and there fans that don't know what the future holds.


HS and his fans have no worries as he's not going anywhere.


----------



## Zerohour

You may be right. Why not both though? It's free advertising for the satellite company on FreeFM (to those who dont have it). That's why XM did it in the first place.


----------



## xzitony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i think this can make for interesting radio... imagine o&a on howard's show.... to be honest though, not sure how it will look when O&A get along with Howard.... they bad mouthed him so much that now they will probably work together... but then again, Bubba said the same thing to and works for howard so.... i guess it will work



There's no reason to be "not sure how it will look when O&A get along with Howard". They were asked about it this week. They have already stated they will NOT be getting along with Howard. Mel, is another story, and apparenly they don't have too big a problem with Mel.


There's no love for Howard from the boys though, and they have a little more credibility than Bubba apparently. They will walk before they kiss the ring, guarenteed.


----------



## Zerohour




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> thats what i think too... i mean xm hasnt grown that much with them on Free Fm... i dont know
> 
> 
> if i were them i would choose free fm.... its more money



Neither company has grown much the past 1/2 year or so. Hence merger talk. I think they both realize those going to satellite have...not many people left to "grab". Ya know?


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xzitony* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There's no reason to be "not sure how it will look when O&A get along with Howard". They were asked about it this week. They have already stated they will NOT be getting along with Howard. Mel, is another story, and apparenly they don't have too big a problem with Mel.
> 
> 
> There's no love for Howard from the boys though, and they have a little more credibility than Bubba apparently. They will walk before they kiss the ring, guarenteed.



yet they will kiss Mels ring....

what happened to,

will never work for Mel again?


----------



## RAVEN56706

i think so too... thats why i think they will walk.... oh well.... it would make for great radio...


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zerohour* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Neither company has grown much the past 1/2 year or so. Hence merger talk. I think they both realize those going to satellite have...not many people left to "grab". Ya know?




sirius is still growing at a 2-1 clip over xm....


----------



## Zerohour

where'd you read that?


----------



## Zerohour

cant find anything on the net except sirius counts unactivated radios, lol. kinda cheating.


I dont care though - looks like this merger is the lifeboat of both companies.


----------



## mercury




----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zerohour* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> cant find anything on the net except sirius counts unactivated radios, lol. kinda cheating.
> 
> 
> I dont care though - looks like this merger is the lifeboat of both companies.




I agree...as Barb says,this is what both companies need to do to survive.


----------



## RAVEN56706

man.... if this does go through i cant wait for the tech from XM to be used with sirius.. portable devices that is...


----------



## BZiggyZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> there NO QUESTION stern wont be moved.
> 
> 
> I believe O&A will have to make a choice,FreeFM or Sat radio,not both.
> 
> and O&A would choose FreeFM,because they make more money.



Why would either company they work for would want to rock the boat? O&A are making money for both companies. Yes, their NY ratings stink, but that's not the only market their in and CBS has said that it will take another 2 or 3 books to see if O&A are really working out. XM doesn't release ratings numbers but insists 202 is their most popular channel besides the decades. If it's just personality conflict with Mel, he'll be more concerned with the profitability of their show then holding a grudge.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zerohour* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You may be right. Why not both though? It's free advertising for the satellite company on FreeFM (to those who dont have it). That's why XM did it in the first place.



I think this point gets overlooked too often, the freefm show provides a direct link to the competitor's customers and gets their name right in their face constantly, what better way to advertise.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> yet they will kiss Mels ring....
> 
> what happened to,
> 
> will never work for Mel again?



I don't recall them ever saying that, unless they were talking in the context of it being because Mel wouldn't want to hire them again.


They signed a second contract at Infinity with Mel, after the "gag order, when Infinity came through with a big raise and the other things that they wanted.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BZiggyZ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why would either company they work for would want to rock the boat? O&A are making money for both companies. Yes, their NY ratings stink, but that's not the only market their in and CBS has said that it will take another 2 or 3 books to see if O&A are really working out. XM doesn't release ratings numbers but insists 202 is their most popular channel besides the decades. If it's just personality conflict with Mel, he'll be more concerned with the profitability of their show then holding a grudge.




O&A themselves said they have no Idea what this mean for them.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I believe O&A will have to make a choice,FreeFM or Sat radio,not both. and O&A would choose FreeFM,because they make more money.



I don't know about that. O&A have their primary contract with XM and both XM and O&A have contracts with CBS. If CBS wants them on the air, neither O&A nor XM can just ignore the contracts that they have with CBS.


In the same vein, O&A can't just walk on their XM contract, which doesn't expire for another 3 or 4 years, to work solely for CBS. If anything happens, other than O&A getting canceled and Sirius/XM paying them for the remainder of their contract (like Infinity did when they canceled the WNEW show), all parties involved would need to get together and come to a mutually agreeable solution.


Unless their lives will be made a living hell with the new company, I think that they would rather be on satellite because of the "artistic freedom". The FM/XM thing works for them because most of their content is "broadcast radio friendly". Being on XM allows them to still do everything that they want to do, they just have to wait until after 9am to do so. They would be very frustrated & unhappy if they didn't have that outlet.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think this point gets overlooked too often, the freefm show provides a direct link to the competitor's customers and gets their name right in their face constantly, what better way to advertise.




Pat xm's numbers don't really show any spike in sign-ups,actually they show a decline!

also Mel has said in the past he is 100% against giving Talent away to FreeFM...


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Guill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen in the letters from XM and Sirius that subscribers rate will not rise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have seen so far, they talk about this increase in service but never mention subscriber rates.



When asked about prices at the Wall Street press conference yesterday, either Karmazin or Parsons said that the thing that will make their business work is to attract more new customers. They realize that when attempting to attract new customers, they are trying to convert people away from broadcast radio, which is free. They know that price is a major issue when attempting to gain those new customers and that a price increase would just be counter productive.


That doesn't address the situation once they have attracted a significant percentage of the population, but for the next 10 years or so, it should keep the prices at a reasonable level.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. O&A have their primary contract with XM and both XM and O&A have contracts with CBS. If CBS wants them on the air, neither O&A nor XM can just ignore the contracts that they have with CBS.
> 
> 
> In the same vein, O&A can't just walk on their XM contract, which doesn't expire for another 3 or 4 years, to work solely for CBS. If anything happens, other than O&A getting canceled and Sirius/XM paying them for the remainder of their contract (like Infinity did when they canceled the WNEW show), all parties involved would need to get together and come to a mutually agreeable solution.
> 
> 
> Unless their lives will be made a living hell with the new company, I think that they would rather be on satellite because of the "artistic freedom". The FM/XM thing works for them because most of their content is "broadcast radio friendly". Being on XM allows them to still do everything that they want to do, they just have to wait until after 9am to do so. They would be very frustrated & unhappy if they didn't have that outlet.



Bill how much do they make a year with XM and CBS.


Find the answer to that question and you'll find out where they would rather stay.


----------



## RAVEN56706

yep... he said that... i think CBS doesnt want to promote Sirius or Howard so i think this might be a problem for them


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Pat xm's numbers don't really show any spike in sign-ups,actually they show a decline!
> 
> also Mel has said in the past he is 100% against giving Talent away to FreeFM...



I would think that the affect of this type of exposure would not likely be that immediate, also if the sub numbers have declined, they may have declined at a slower rate than they would have. I by no means am an expert at Marketing / Advertising, but I just cannot see any way that this relationship could not help the cause int he long run. Regarding Mel, I doubt he is always correct and suspect his position on it stemmed more from the fact that his competitior was doing it.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would think that the affect of this type of exposure would not likely be that immediate, also if the sub numbers have declined, they may have declined at a slower rate than they would have. I by no means am an expert at Marketing / Advertising, but I just cannot see any way that this relationship could not help the cause int he long run. Regarding Mel, I doubt he is always correct and suspect his position on it stemmed more from the fact that his competitior was doing it.




Pat Honestly now,


the way the show plays on FreeFM can't be good for sign-ups,it's Horrible at times.Iv listened and also read whats going on through Wackbag+have friends that are big fans,they at times cant stand it!!!

The XM portion at times kicks ass.the breaks on FreeFM come 20 after and on the hour like sports radio....management is up there ass with emails about what they discussed the day before.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Pat Honestly now,
> 
> 
> the way the show plays on FreeFM can't be good for sign-ups,it's Horrible at times.Iv listened and also read whats going on through Wackbag+have friends that are big fans,they at times cant stand it!!!
> 
> The XM portion at times kicks ass.the breaks on FreeFM come 20 after and on the hour like sports radio....management is up there ass with emails about what they discussed the day before.



I'm not going to go down the road of arguing quality of the show, that's been done to death. The fact that the product name is in the face of the consumer from an advertising standpoint is a good thing. The fact that the fans of the FM show get to hear of all the crazy stuff that happens on the non-FCC regualated show is a good thing. All in my opinion of course.


----------



## That Don Guy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bigmark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Do you think that each receiver will be able to pick up the combined companies signals? I have an accord with XM, and I should would like to get Sirius through that, rather than having the dopey Sirius car kit.



I can't speak for Sirius, but XM has enough bandwidth problems as it is without having to add the channels that are currently Sirius-only (Stern, NASCAR, NFL).


I'll say the same thing I've said in pretty much every other XM/Sirius forum I could find - they'll probably have to keep both systems going, and have some channels on XM and others on Sirius. There are a number of duplications (ESPNews, for example), and some channels where both play the same music (for example, both have their own "classic jazz" and bluegrass music stations), so they can free up some bandwidth by eliminating the duplicates.


If I was doing it: let XM handle the music stations, and Sirius the talk/news/sports stations. (If there's enough bandwidth, maybe they could have an overlap of what they consider to be the most popular stations on both, so, for example, a current XM owner could listen to Stern without having to shell out for Sirius hardware.)


-- Don


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Pat Honestly now,
> 
> 
> the way the show plays on FreeFM can't be good for sign-ups,it's Horrible at times.Iv listened and also read whats going on through Wackbag+have friends that are big fans,they at times cant stand it!!!
> 
> The XM portion at times kicks ass.the breaks on FreeFM come 20 after and on the hour like sports radio....management is up there ass with emails about what they discussed the day before.



The point of the FreeFM show is the fact that O&A aren't known nationwide. The Sex For Sam incident occurred as they were growing their syndication. Therefore, there aren't people from places outside of the cities in which they were already syndicated who would by XM *because* of O&A, as there were in the cities in which they had previously been heard on broadcast radio. The bulk of the people who bought XM specifically for O&A were from NY, Boston, Philly, Cleveland, Washington and a few others.


By putting them on FreeFM for a couple of hours a day, XM is exposing them to an audience who wouldn't have otherwise even heard *of* them, much less heard their show. They are hoping to get some of these people, who wouldn't have otherwise bought XM to now subscribe.


It's a completely different thing with Stern. He was already known nationwide. People have already been exposed to him. They know him well enough to decide whether they want to buy Sirius because of him or not.


As far as the people who hate the FreeFM portion of the show is concerned, those are the people who were previously spoiled by few number of commercials. If they really hated it that much, they would just listen to the replays, which run throughout the day, where those breaks are shortened to the normal XM commercial break lenght.


If you go read the other posts on Wackbag by the people who complain the most, you will realize that most of the complainers are a**holes to begin with.


The FM show doesn't bother me at all. Rather than playing commercials on the XM side, they are playing clips from their old FM show that we haven't heard in years. Eventually, that will get old. But, right now, I can listen to Anthony doing his Ronald Reagan with Alzheimers, Mike Tyson or Dice Clay impressions for hours.


----------



## BZiggyZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> O&A themselves said they have no Idea what this mean for them.



Sure. It's a little scary for the show and the fans. Still don't know how you get to "either free FM or satellite. not both" from this uncertainty. Where's the ultimatum coming from?


----------



## Terminator840




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robert Clark* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is there Cinemagic on Sirius? Nope.
> 
> 
> No Cinemagic, no Sirius for me...




I agree, Cinemagic and the wider choice of music channels is why I chose XM.


I hope they have a Stern lockout button, I don't even want to see his name pop up on the display.


----------



## Zerohour




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I can listen to Anthony doing his Ronald Reagan with Alzheimers, Mike Tyson or Dice Clay impressions for hours.










Agree. Great radio. If you played that for an O&A hater but didnt tell them it was O&A they'd be rolling. Then you tell them and they say "Howard already did it" lol


----------



## RaveD

Even O&A admit that this deal has everything to do with business and nothing to do with who likes who.


Mel hates O&A. O&A thinks Howard hates them. O&A hate Bubba. Bubba hates O&A. Who cares?


The fact is nobody really knows how much of this "hatred" is real and how much is just fuel for a radio show.


If O&A are a popular show on XM, they will probably survive the merger. However, they may not get the mega-deal that they had hoped for. CBS might blow away XM/Sirius in terms of what they can offer, assuming O&A continue to build ratings and generate advertising dollars.


Mel has already stated that he does not believe in the business model of allowing his talent to straddle both satellite radio and free radio. This could mean that O&A will have to choose between CBS and XM/Sirius.


Or, Mel could change his mind and come to a financial agreement with his former employer. But let's not forget, Mel "hates" Redstone so that is unlikely to happen.


The bottom line is, whatever makes the most money for XM/Sirius is what is going to happen, regardless of who hates who.


----------



## Zerohour

Isnt the director of the board higher than the CEO? That would make XM in charge of decisions. XM stated again today that 202 (O&A/Ron and Fez channel) is #1, so I dont see them letting anyone go.


----------



## barbie845

More craziness... LOL


Obviously Mel will have power, but XM will kind of control the BOD, which any CEO needs to get anything done. So it's basically a 50-50 split in power.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaveD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> assuming O&A continue to build ratings and generate advertising dollars.



thats the problem,the numbers in most markets are horrible.in some areas lower then DLR`s were.in NY where it matters most,they were beat by Whoopee and Iman#21?)...in Chicago they had .08!(LAST)...


the trend should be showing up over 4 books,however it's trending down.


next 3 books are key!


----------



## RAVEN56706

lol.... xm fan boys lol.... sirius fan boys....starting to sound dumb.... no matter who is still there...the people that will survive is the people that are helping the business whether it is O&A and the rest.... i wont say howard because he isnt going anywhere....


I have to ask though.... lets say o&a say they want no part of this and just will stick with free fm.... will all of the xm fanboys leave xm or will they stay....


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> lol.... xm fan boys lol.... sirius fan boys....starting to sound dumb



actually I thought O&A/xm fans and stern/sirius fans were having a pretty civil discussion for a change!


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> lol.... xm fan boys lol.... sirius fan boys....starting to sound dumb.... no matter who is still there...the people that will survive is the people that are helping the business whether it is O&A and the rest.... i wont say howard because he isnt going anywhere....
> 
> 
> I have to ask though.... lets say o&a say they want no part of this and just will stick with free fm.... will all of the xm fanboys leave xm or will they stay....



I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy but, much of my decision would depend on what happens with the music channels and pricing. If the depth of playlist stayed the same as currently on XM and the price did not increase, my family would continue with two subs. If the playlists shifted more towards the top 40 and the cost shoot up I would probably end up dropping one of the two subs that we have.


----------



## barbie845

I just listen to music and a very occasional MLB game, so I hope the price for me will stay the same or even drop a little. No Stern, or O&A, or even talk or news for me or the wife.. Just a basic music package will suit me fine.


----------



## dbacksfan51

I have been a XM sub since very early on, and have enjoyed having the access to a variety of different genres to listen to. That being said, the sound quality has gotten worse, so I hope they get improved sq over what they have now. As far as the O&A topic, I have listened to them for about the last 2.5 years because of Anthony, and some of there frequent guests like Patrice Oneil, and Rich Voss. Opie is worthless, and never has anything funny to say. If he thinks something is funny, he makes sure to repeat it , so everybody hears it, and Norton is a hack. But like I said, I like Anthony so I keep listening. If O&A get the axe, they may loose a few subs, but it most likely would not make even a single percentage point difference in overall subs. If the new company plans to keep people paying the money, they need to work on sound quality, and get rid of all commercials on the music stations. I don't mind a DJ talking about the music, but no commercials.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dbacksfan51* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If O&A get the axe, they may loose a few subs, but it most likely would not make even a single percentage point difference in overall subs.



If Eric Logan (XM VP of programming) has been telling the truth, then O&A's channel is the most popular one on XM. I'm certain that many of the people who listen to O&A on XM listen to nothing but channel 202 (which is Ron & Fez at noon (replay at midnight) and O&A the rest of the day).


If O&A were to leave XM, there would be no reason for those people (which included me) to maintain their subscriptions.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> thats the problem,the numbers in most markets are horrible.in some areas lower then DLR`s were.in NY where it matters most,they were beat by Whoopee and Iman#21?)...in Chicago they had .08!(LAST)...



A big problem in cities where O&A were popular in syndication during their first run with CBS radio (then Infinity), such as NYC, Boston, Philly & Cleveland, is that a significant percentage of the people who were their biggest fans back then, ended up becoming XM subscribers, who aren't included in local ratings. If O&A were to no longer be available on satellite, their ratings would see a significant bump in those markets.


----------



## Terminator840




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dbacksfan51* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have been a XM sub since very early on, and have enjoyed having the access to a variety of different genres to listen to. That being said, the sound quality has gotten worse, so I hope they get improved sq over what they have now. As far as the O&A topic, I have listened to them for about the last 2.5 years because of Anthony, and some of there frequent guests like Patrice Oneil, and Rich Voss. Opie is worthless, and never has anything funny to say. If he thinks something is funny, he makes sure to repeat it , so everybody hears it, and Norton is a hack. But like I said, I like Anthony so I keep listening. If O&A get the axe, they may loose a few subs, but it most likely would not make even a single percentage point difference in overall subs. If the new company plans to keep people paying the money, they need to work on sound quality, and get rid of all commercials on the music stations. I don't mind a DJ talking about the music, but no commercials.




Actually the SQ has gotten a lot better, I really noticed a difference after I got a Pioneer Inno back in December. I can now actually listen to XM in my HT with the Inno hooked up to the Yamaha A/V. Running Dolby Pro Logic IIx it sounds really good, before I got the Inno I couldn't do that the sound was terrible in the surrounds and very flat up front. Even in 2-channel stereo it sounded bad, but the Pioneer Inno changed all of that.


----------



## jerrodshook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *That Don Guy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If I was doing it: let XM handle the music stations, and Sirius the talk/news/sports stations. (If there's enough bandwidth, maybe they could have an overlap of what they consider to be the most popular stations on both, so, for example, a current XM owner could listen to Stern without having to shell out for Sirius hardware.)
> 
> 
> -- Don



Even though I love listening to Stern and Bubba, if they dropped Sirius' music and went with XM's music channels, I would consider dropping my sub. I listened to XM's rock stations and couldn't find one I liked. There are a number of them on Sirius I can listen to for hours.


----------



## Gary*w*

XM's Squizz or Bone Yard ain't bad if you dig that type music. I listen to Octane 20 and Faction28 alot on Sirius and love Buzzsaw's classic hard rock.


----------



## kgoetz97

I hope that they both work to improve the Sound Quality. Perhaps ala carte programming will allow this to happen. We can all hope for it!


----------



## jonvall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> A big problem in cities where O&A were popular in syndication during their first run with CBS radio (then Infinity), such as NYC, Boston, Philly & Cleveland, is that a significant percentage of the people who were their biggest fans back then, ended up becoming XM subscribers, who aren't included in local ratings. If O&A were to no longer be available on satellite, their ratings would see a significant bump in those markets.





So in other words....nobody from XM listens to the FM show? Or are you saying they listen but are being ignored by Arbitron?


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonvall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So in other words....nobody from XM listens to the FM show? Or are you saying they listen but are being ignored by Arbitron?



The show that airs on FM is simulcast on XM. However, the people listening on XM hear it before any editing that takes place for broadcast radio. If someone swears or something happens that causes the show to be dumped on FM, it doesn't affect those of us listening on XM.


We also don't hear the commercials that the FM show broadcasts. When a break occurs, we will hear a couple of XM commercials or promos and then we will hear a 'best of" clip from an old show.


Because we are listening on XM and not hearing the commercials being played on the FM version, we don't count toward the Arbitron ratings for the FM version of the show. Since ratings are used to set advertising rates, it only makes sense that we aren't counted toward the ratings of a station who's commercials we don't hear.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> and get rid of all commercials on the music stations



You must be getting a different stream from XM then the one I receive.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonvall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So in other words....nobody from XM listens to the FM show? Or are you saying they listen but are being ignored by Arbitron?



Why would anybody with XM listen to the FM show?


----------



## jonvall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The show that airs on FM is simulcast on XM. However, the people listening on XM hear it before any editing that takes place for broadcast radio. If someone swears or something happens that causes the show to be dumped on FM, it doesn't affect those of us listening on XM.
> 
> 
> We also don't hear the commercials that the FM show broadcasts. When a break occurs, we will hear a couple of XM commercials or promos and then we will hear a 'best of" clip from an old show.
> 
> 
> Because we are listening on XM and not hearing the commercials being played on the FM version, we don't count toward the Arbitron ratings for the FM version of the show. Since ratings are used to set advertising rates, it only makes sense that we aren't counted toward the ratings of a station who's commercials we don't hear.




Oh...I had no idea how they did it.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why would anybody with XM listen to the FM show?



I think that there are a lot of people who think that the O&A show works the same way that Ron & Fez's shows on XM and Free FM work. R&F do two separate shows each day. The noon-3 show is only on XM and the 6-9pm show is only on Free-FM.


A lot of people think that the O&A show can only be heard on Free-FM from 6-9 and then the 9-11 (or noon) portion of the show is only available on XM.


While the second part of that (the late part only being on XM) is true, the first part isn't.


----------



## LenSp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zerohour* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No mention yet, but I don't see why they would. With a merger, income doubles and debt halves...



Not quite. First, there's no guarantee that income will double. There are always people who chose one company over another for a reason that's important to them. A merger of those two companies can bring the negatives that made them avoid one company over another. The prime example in this merger will be Stern. He has a lot of fans. But there a lot of people who despise him (not just O&A fanatics). So a number of XM fans who chose XM to avoid putting money in his pocket may decide to cancel with a merged service. Brand loyalty can go both ways.


Second, debt doesn't halve. The debt of the two will be combined over the hopefully doubled sales. So the debt will be the same (i.e. if XM owes $1 billion and Sirius owes $1 billion, then SiriusXM will have $2 billion in debt, not a half billion). It would only drop if Sirius and XM had owed each other money. The debt ratio could drop if sales increase more under a merger. The debt ratio could also increase if the merged companies have to borrow to pay for the merger (i.e buyouts to smaller investors or talent to be let go). Expenses for handling the equipment incompatibililty could also be a big problem. What happens if Sirius owners with a lifetime subscription lose it because new radios are issued and not because their original radio finally breaks? Sounds like lawsuits that may require refunds or buyouts of consumers or free radios being issued.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LenSp* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not quite. First, there's no guarantee that income will double. There are always people who chose one company over another for a reason that's important to them. A merger of those two companies can bring the negatives that made them avoid one company over another. The prime example in this merger will be Stern. He has a lot of fans. But there a lot of people who despise him (not just O&A fanatics). So a number of XM fans who chose XM to avoid putting money in his pocket may decide to cancel with a merged service. Brand loyalty can go both ways.
> 
> 
> Second, debt doesn't halve. The debt of the two will be combined over the hopefully doubled sales. So the debt will be the same (i.e. if XM owes $1 billion and Sirius owes $1 billion, then SiriusXM will have $2 billion in debt, not a half billion). It would only drop if Sirius and XM had owed each other money. The debt ratio could drop if sales increase more under a merger. The debt ratio could also increase if the merged companies have to borrow to pay for the merger (i.e buyouts to smaller investors or talent to be let go). Expenses for handling the equipment incompatibililty could also be a big problem. What happens if Sirius owners with a lifetime subscription lose it because new radios are issued and not because their original radio finally breaks? Sounds like lawsuits that may require refunds or buyouts of consumers or free radios being issued.




The Important part of this Merger I believe is getting sirius/xm in every brand new car that sells.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Important part of this Merger I believe is getting sirius/xm in every brand new car that sells.




Give that man a cigar.


----------



## vitod

Mel Karmazin was on the Howard Stern show and HE says that the current receivers will be able to pick up both XM and Sirius content because the new company will share content/channels from each other. You don't need to get another receiver. So XM subs will get the HS show and vice versa.


----------



## J.H.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vitod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mel Karmazin was on the Howard Stern show and HE says that the current receivers will be able to pick up both XM and Sirius content because the new company will share content/channels from each other. You don't need to get another receiver. So XM subs will get the HS show and vice versa.



Great news I did not want to buy another receiver.


----------



## mercury

Sirius CEO Karmazin Hosts Q&A on Stern

This morning, Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin stopped by the Howard Stern show for nearly an hour. The Stern staff and callers asked him questions regarding plans for the merger.


He said that merger Talk began nearly two years ago. XM passed on it then, but talks have been ongoing since. The companies' lower stock prices combined greater external competition has made the deal more appealing to both.


The following were created to the best of my ability; Sirius Backstage and I are not responsible for any inaccuracies.


Monthly Price

When asked if rates will increase:


Mel: Sirius charged $12.95 when they started, and still charge $12.95 after signing Howard and Nascar. They're not in a price war with XM, they're in a price war with free radio.


He hinted the tiered programming plan may allow some subscribers to pay less than they do now. The pricing and the subscriber packages are still vague at this point, but pointed out there have been no rate hikes since he's been CEO.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In response to Artie's concern about vending machine prices increasing:


Mel: I don't know how long we can keep the current pricing on our vending machine. Our service, we're not going to raise the prices on our service, but I never said anything about the vending machine.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel: I wish I heard the good argument as to why not [approve the merger]?'. If the argument is higher prices, I'm convinced that I can give people reason to believe that's not going to happen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Robin: If they don't approve it [at first], could they say if you do this, this, and this?


Mel: For example, if someone said we're concerned about pricing, is there something you can do to guarantee prices won't increase'?. I mean, there are a number of things we're prepared to do or trade off in this event.


Shared Content

Stern: What will happen after the merger?

Mel: Your Sirius satellite radio [] will not become obsolete, and you'll still be able to get all your Sirius programming. Our hope would be that as we negotiate through existing contracts from the partners that we'll be able to add content like Baseball to the Sirius system so our subscribers would be able to get some of that desirable content.


It looks like in-house talent could be on both services without a hitch. However, 3rd-party content providers may require some negotiations to be available on both services. No final word at this time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Robin: Let me ask Mel about that. Do you see any value in sharing your talent with Free Radio?Mel: I haven't seen any value in that. We compete with free radio. The fact that you have to pay for our service the more different our content is, the better it is. I never saw any advantage with sharing our talent with terrestrial radio.


Regarding Opie & Anthony's contract with Free FM to broadcast on both FM and XM, Mel says he'll continue to honor any deals that have been made.


Technological Compatibility

Robin: But there's no compatibility between the two systems?

Mel: Correct, and the same thing would be true of XM. If you have an XM radio currently, [that radio will not] be obsolete; we'd make our content available on those receivers as well.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mel: Anyone planning to buy a radio during this time should feel free to do it. They're not going to lose anything and if the deal is off, they won't be any worse off.


Regulatory Approval

Mel: The benefits for the consumer, in my opinion, are very clear. There's a general sense in Washington that big is bad'; a merger is bad before anyone has a chance to look at it. I'm confident that when they take a look at the advantages, they'll approve it. Both the R&D departments will be combined.


Without a merger, [] we could not come up with a way of sharing content. There are exclusive agreements that exist with these two companies today Car companies don't want two OEM tuners, the content providers are contractually obligated to one company over the other.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stern: Give me odds. What're the odds of this going through for real?


Mel: I will tell you what I told our board when I asked them to vote on the merger. I told them there were certainly anti-trust issues, so we'd go through the Justice Department. I think the chances of this getting passed is very good, and they can realize satellite radio is competing in a bigger market. At the FCC, there is a public standard question. At this point, we hope we can make the argument it's in the public interest, but you're dealing with these 5 commissioners.


Stern: So what's the odds?


Mel: Certainly better than 50%, in my opinion. I know this is in the consumer's best interest, and it's not anti-competitive. I can't see how they can go the other way, but it is a possibility.


Stern: I read in the paper that if it isn't approved, all one company has to do is declare bankruptcy and the other one can acquire it. Can that ever happen?


Mel: Looking at the financial situation of both Sirius and XM, I can't see that happening today.


Advertising

Mel: We have a little over 6mil subscribers today, they have 7.6 million subscribers. Each of us go to advertisers and compete with all these other companies. The ability to go into and talk to 13 million subscribers is much better. The advertising is not a very important part of the content, but it is a second revenue stream [] that makes it desirable.



Merger Planning

Stern: So when you start getting close on this deal, were you nervous that someone was going to leak information that it was coming out? How do you keep something like this quiet?


Mel: Well you keep it private by having meetings in private places. We met in my apartment for a couple of the meetings as it was getting much more fluid so we had the bankers and representatives of XM visiting me in my apartment. We continued to work on what the advantages were to the shareholders at the end of the day. We knew we'd have to face regulatory approval


Stern: Were there snags in the beginning? Was there an argument, like it almost didn't work out?


Mel: Yeah, it didn't work out for a long period of time, and most of the reason had to do with who gets 55% and who gets 45%. The XM argument was that they have more subscribers, they are worth more money than Sirius. They would argue that they have more relationships with car companies that produce more cars. We made the argument that we had far better content, our brand was stronger, and we are growing faster over the last couple years, and that we are narrowing the difference. At the end of the day it was better to be 50/50.


Stern: How did you get to be CEO?


Mel: The boards of both companies decided that would be in their best interest. I would have been happy to step aside if that would have made it work better. There was never any discussion for another CEO.


Stern: So how do we get this on the fast track? Robin: They say it'll take a year or more Stern: A year, Mel! Come on.


Mel: We announced the merger on President's Day because the market was closed. Tuesday morning we had a conference call with the investors and the press. At 10:30, we went over and met with each of the FCC commissioners and by 1pm we had met in person with all 5.


Stern: And what was that like? What was the vibe there? That must be a fun party.


There was a general skepticism, because a lot of media mergers have taken place, there's a general sense against media mergers. We talked about why this is different, how these companies compete in a very big universe of audio services, how we're not making money, we explained the argument about having these two different services.


Stern: Did they seem to buy into this?


Mel: I'll let you know when they vote.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel: The one thing that I'll feel good about is that I tried to make it happen. I have done everything possible to make it happen. If it doesn't happen, we've tried, and we go back to business as it was before.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel: I'll give you an example that wasn't ever contemplated at the time of our licenses being issued. Virtually every car company is putting a jack in their cars so that people can put their MP3 player and plug it in so they can get their iPod choices in addition to the radio. I think that's great for the consumer, and in no way did we lobby against getting those things done. I remember when they first came out with cell phones, the NAB didn't want there to be cell phones in the car because it competes with being able to listen to radio. Those are the kinds of political issues that people raise.Stern: When is the earliest we'll have a decision on this?Hopefully it'll go through the process and a politician won't stand up and try to kill the deal. We hope the political people are concerned about their constituents because it is in their best interest. I'm testifying in the house judiciary committee on Wednesday; testifying again next weekStern: This quickly? It goes down this fast?Mel: Tuesday, the day after the announcement, two congressional committees asked me to come down to Washington and testify.


Robin: What is the process? Who do you have to have approve this?


Mel: The justice department and the FCC. That's it.


Stern: Some things they don't care about. Why are they so concerned about this story?


Mel: Firstly, media. Clear Channel can own an unlimited number of radio stations in the US. People regard all media mergers the same and don't realize Satellite radio is a really effective competitor to the Clear Channels of the world.


Stern: Do we have some sort of lobbyists representing this thing too?


Mel: We have people representing us with congress and with the FCC.


Robin: Are they any good?


Mel: If we get the deal, it's good.


Stern: When you testify, will it be televised anywhere that I can watch?


Mel: I don't know if C-SPAN will be covering it or not. When I got asked to speak in front of congress, I sort of relished it. It gives us the opportunity to get the story out. I'm really proud of what the companies would look like afterwords.


Stern: This is about the future of Satellite Radio and its success.


Mel: I believe that satellite radio, if allowed to combine, will be able to effectively compete down the road with all the technology that's out there. If it's not approved, i'm less confident, but I'm also optimistic that we can.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dominic Barbara (on Phone): Hi, Mel. There's supposed to be a rational basis if they don't allow it. You can go to court about it, correct?


Mel: The process of going to court is so time consuming, and you tend not to go to court. You're talking about years. The cost and distraction of it mean it'll get approved or the deal will get killed.


Stern: One of the things I like about this deal is it's got me pumped-up. I'll have a bigger audience in a flash, which also adds to the show. The more listeners you have, the more action there is. I'm excited about this, and I think in some way I'm gonna feel deflated.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stern: Let's get to Omar in San Jose


Omar (on phone): Are you going to retain CEO title?


Stern: Yes!


Omar (on Phone): Oh, so you are going to retain it. After this is approved, are you going to acquire such talents as Adam Corolla, maybe?


Stern: That's what this whole thing is about. Mel confided in me that this merger would enable us to get Adam Corolla, perhaps.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bill in New York: My question is what're they going to call it?'


Mel: We haven't committed to a name, as we get closer to it we will announce what it will be.


Stern: Would you switch to a new name or assume XM's or Sirius' name?


Mel: I couldn't imagine changing it to a new name, but I'd be open to hearing why we should do that.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wack Pack Name Submissions:Wendy: Jessica - It's a pretty name

Blue Iris: Howard Stern - He's the man

Riley Martin: SiriuM! - Hehehah. Like a serum, a healing type of a power that's bringing everything together.

King of All Blacks: Surge - Like Power Surge. That's the new name.

Jeff the Drunk: I don't give a [care].


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel: Within the next month we'll file the applications with the regulators.


Robin: How long does that take?


Mel: If they see the world as we do, it can take 3-4 months. It could take between 6-9 months and hope to have regulatory approval by the end of the year.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mark in Boston (on Phone): I've been through a media merger The only people who benefit are the guys on the top.


Mel: It's a good point, but that holds true for only aged companies. We don't have a lot of un-necessary employees.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stern: Mel, don't do any kind of ecstasy or amphetamines before you go to congress to mess this thing up.


----------



## Gary*w*




mercury said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Wack Pack Name Submissions:Wendy: Jessica - It's a pretty name
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> Howard 100 News is allready refering to it as Jessica radio.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In the same vein, O&A can't just walk on their XM contract, which doesn't expire for another 3 or 4 years, to work solely for CBS.



Recent articles have indicated that O&A's contract runs throught late 2008 (since they started in October, that's probably the month in which it expires). When reading these articles on the air, the guys haven't disputed that fact.


So, I was wrong when I posted, earlier in this thread, that their contract runs through 2009 or 2010.


----------



## Gary*w*

Mel K. is set to testify in front of Congress today. According to the Howard Stern show it will be at 3:00pm EST. and will be covered on Cspan 3 ( link )


you can watch on-line using that link.


----------



## vitod

Thanks so much Gary! I'm going to watch it.


----------



## RAVEN56706

same here... interested to see how it goes... not to mention, hope it does go through... want to pick up one of xm's portable devices...


----------



## Pat6366

Wondering if anyone else rooting against it? From my standpoint, it seems like it can only lead to a price increase and I am currenlty happy with the XM content and hardware.

Pat


----------



## RaveD

According to Mel, it will result in a price drop, not increase. It would make sense, since they are trying to attract more customers and will suddenly reduce their costs by hundreds of millions per year. However, I think any price drop would come in the form of a la carte pricing, so that if you truly want everything that both services have to offer, it is likely to come to more than $13/month.


As a Sirius subscriber, I would welcome MLB. Otherwise I have no need for XM, unless they bring back MusicLab to the satellite.


I think the merger makes a lot of sense; the combined company would be a content powerhouse and look to increase their distribution well beyond satellite. In 5 years those birds are going to be obsolete and unnecessary, with everything streaming over the Internet and delivered via WiMAX and cellular data services.


----------



## RaveD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kgoetz97* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hope that they both work to improve the Sound Quality. Perhaps ala carte programming will allow this to happen. We can all hope for it!



Sound quality should improve on the music channels since they will cut out a lot of duplicate channels. But that's only if they decide not to fill in those holes with more content.


Also, in order for XM and Sirius receivers to work with all channels, they would need to use the Sirius PAC CODEC, not XM's AACPlus. At comparable bitrates, AACPlus is superior. Thus, if you think XM sounds better than Sirius, you may be disappointed after the merger. Still, that's a long way off and the technology issues haven't been settled yet.


----------



## MRinDenver

This is a huge leap for the mgmt of both companies. It won't happen, in my opinion. The legal hurdles are just too many, too high.


----------



## Gary*w*

The Sirius - XM merger testimony is on Cspan 3 Now


( Link )


The president of the NAB is on now.


----------



## RAVEN56706

if anyone is listening.... can someone give an update on the hearing... also, does anyone know if they are showing this on Sirius?


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> if anyone is listening.... can someone give an update on the hearing... also, does anyone know if they are showing this on Sirius?



The NAB is getting killed as Mel scores points...



Sirius CEO Makes Pledges To Congress On Service, Prices


By Corey Boles

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A merger between Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (SIRI) and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (XMSR) wouldn't lead to less choice or higher costs for listeners, the chief executive of Sirius toldCongress Wednesday.


In his written testimony submitted to the Antitrust Task Force, a body comprised of House Judiciary Committee members, Sirius Chief Executive Mel Karmazin pledged that consumers would not lose out as a result of the $13billion merger.


"We operate in an intensely competitive environment that will continue to intensify post-merger - and continue to provide an inherent check on programming as well as pricing," said Karmazin's statement.


In his opening remarks, Judiciary Committee Chairman and head of the task force, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said that while he was approaching the matter with an open mind, the burden of proof lay with the companies to convince Congress of the merits of the deal.


He said the "critical threshold" was whether the market that the two satellite companies compete in is "all forms of digital and retail music and radio, or simply satellite radio."


Conyers' statement went on to say that from one perspective, the merger "can be said to turn a duopoly into a monopoly."


When satellite radio was licensed a decade ago, Sirius and XM were granted the only two licenses. In exchange, Federal CommunicationsCommission rules stated that the two wouldn't be allowed to merge in the future.


Sirius and XM have argued that in the ensuing 10 years, the market has changed substantially and they are no longer just competing against each other.


The Department of Justice's antitrust task force would have to approvethe merger and FCC rules would have to be changed to allow the deal before it could receive final approval.


Karmazin was appearing before the inaugural hearing of the task force alongside David Rehr, chief executive of the National Association of Broadcasters, and representatives of consumer groups.


The NAB, which represents mainly smaller radio and television broadcasters across the U.S., is a fierce opponent of the deal.


"The proposed merger must be rejected," said Rehr in his opening statement. "Public policy should never allow one entity to acquire state-sanctioned, monopoly control over the 25 megahertz of spectrumallocated to satellite radio service."


Taking a somewhat less strident view was Gigi B. Sohn, president of public interest group Public Knowledge.


In her opening statement, she said that the merger should be given the green light only if it met three conditions.


It must make available pricing choices such as channel-by-channel subscriptions or tiered programming; it must hand over 5% of its capacity to noncommercial educational programming; and it should agree to not raise prices for three years after the merger was granted approval.


-By Corey Boles, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6637; corey.boles at dowjones.com


Sirius CEO: Committed To Lowering Prices Post-Merger

By Corey Boles

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) Chief Executive Mel Karmazin on Wednesday told a congressional committee the company would cut consumer prices if its merger with XM Satellite Radio Holdings (XMSR) is approved.


Testifying before the Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee, Karmazin said subscriber costs would not rise, as some have feared, but would actually decline.


"The idea of raising prices to compete with free radio is bizarre and doesn't work," said Karmazin. "We are committed to not raising prices and, in fact, are committed to lowering prices."


Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the head of both the task force and main Judiciary committee was skeptical.


"We don't have too good a record of satellite companies keeping their promises," said Conyers. "'Trust me' isn't going to work here, not just today, but in the longer-term examinations you will be going through.


You've got some high hurdles to overcome."


In response to questioning from the ranking Republican member of the task force, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, Karmazin said that Sirius and XM weren't making a "failing company argument" and said the merger between the two companies wasn't necessary.


But, he said, it would be in the best interests of consumers for the merger to be allowed.


----------



## Gary*w*

At the table are Mel K. the CEO of Sirius, Davi Rehr the President of the NAB, Gigi Sohn A lady from some consumer group called Public Knowledge, and Charles Biggio a Federal Anti Trust attorney and Mark Cooper of Consumer federation of America.


The Senators (House Judiciary Committee) seem to be leaning slightly against the merger. With exceptions Republicians lean more for and Democrats lean more against. Based soley on the tone of the questions.


The questions are generally centered on what exactly does Sat. Radio compete with Ipods, internet, OTA radio, ect.? Would this merger benefit the consumer and how? How can Sat radio claim to offer more choice to consumers by morphing into a single company.


Not suprisingly there is a very contentious aire between Karmizin and the NAB guy. However Reps. from both parties have also hit the NAB guy pretty hard. The two consumer advocate groups are hitting the NAB and Sat Radio pretty hard with Mrs. Sohn seeming to be more on the side of Sat. Radio and Mr. Cooper just repeating essentially Monopoly bad.


Mel keeps harping on taking advantage of the synergies of a merger to pass along cost savings to the consumer. He promises not to try and compete locally with OTA by doing local news programming. Theres a pretty interresting discussion on minority programming, and how some local OTA markets can't support it. The programming by Sat Radio of stations geared to Africian American affairs and entertainment as well as gay and lesbian programming is serving an essential service to those communities.


Ala Carte is a buzzword, Mel says the technology exists to do ala carte or teired programming and the Reps. seem to be biting on that hook. Mel says the flat fee of 12.95 woludn't go up but if you don't want MLB, NFL NASCAR ect. it could be lower.


Only just now has the Rep. From Memphis TN. mentioned Howard Stern.


----------



## troqua

My impression at this point in the hearing is that the merger will go through. Amazing how many of the congresspeople have XM radio. There concern is about pricing and consumer issues, and the guy from Sirius has vowed, under oath, that prices will not increase as a result of the merger. They are also considering tiered packages. It also sounds like consumers keep the radios they have currently. Basically, if you have XM now, you still have XM PLUS additional programming, and you continue to use your XM radio. And vice versa for Sirius subscribers.


Interesting hearing! I hope everyone had a chance to listen. Conyers did a great job of focusing on the issues at hand, and kept things moving along.


----------



## Gary*w*

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) N.Y. 9th District. Is nailing the NAB hard right now and has allready said that a mistake was made in the EchoStar-DirectTV merger ruling and called out the NAB by saying:


"Mr. Rehr, do some of your channels have music?"


Rehr- "Yes"


"Mr. Karmizin do some of your channels have music?"


Mel- "yes"


"Mr Reher do some of your channels have talk?"


Rehr- "yes"


"Mr. Karmizin do some of your channels have talk?"


Mel- "Yes"


"Mr. Reher do some of your channels have sports?"


Rehr- "Yes"


"Mr. Karmizin do some of your channels have sports?"


Mel-"Yes"


"Then would everyone here please stop throwing around the word monopoly because you are clearly competeing with each other!"


As Rep. Weiner went on he actually got Mr. Cooper the anti monopoly consumer advocate on his side.


Mel did score some points today.


----------



## vitod

I caught the last 20 mins and the vibe seems to favor sat. Mel was the only one to be praised on the panel by The Committee Chairman. Mel looked very confident with authority.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary*w** /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) N.Y. 9th District. Is nailing the NAB hard right now and has allready said that a mistake was made in the EchoStar-DirectTV merger ruling and called out the NAB by saying:
> 
> 
> "Mr. Rehr, do some of your channels have music?"
> 
> 
> Rehr- "Yes"
> 
> 
> "Mr. Karmizin do some of your channels have music?"
> 
> 
> Mel- "yes"
> 
> 
> "Mr Reher do some of your channels have talk?"
> 
> 
> Rehr- "yes"
> 
> 
> "Mr. Karmizin do some of your channels have talk?"
> 
> 
> Mel- "Yes"
> 
> 
> "Mr. Reher do some of your channels have sports?"
> 
> 
> Rehr- "Yes"
> 
> 
> "Mr. Karmizin do some of your channels have sports?"
> 
> 
> Mel-"Yes"
> 
> 
> "Then would everyone here please stop throwing around the word monopoly because you are clearly competeing with each other!"
> 
> 
> As Rep. Weiner went on he actually got Mr. Cooper the anti monopoly consumer advocate on his side.
> 
> 
> Mel did score some points today.



The NAB guy sounded like a moron a few times.


----------



## Bill Broderick

If Karmazin gets the FCC and Congress to allow this merger based on the premise that broadcast radio, satellite radio, ipods, CD's etc..., then the FCC and Congress would have absolutely no basis for not allowing a single corporation to own every terrestrial radio station in the country.


Mel's "more choice" argument is a load of crap. If this merger is allowed to go through, there would only be one option for uncensored live content. That's a monopoly.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> there would only be one option for uncensored live content.



For now. But chances are that too will change in a couple of years, maybe sooner.


----------



## RAVEN56706

soon, internet radio will be introduced and then it wont be the only one available.... still this merger is 50/50.... but i have a question


does any xm people here want the merger to happen?


because it seems to me the xm peeps are really negative about this whole thing....


----------



## BZiggyZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> does any xm people here want the merger to happen?



If it means I get NFL, Stern, and a lower monthly fee, it sounds good. If it means I lose anything on XM that isn't duplicated on Sirius, I am opposed.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> soon, internet radio will be introduced and then it wont be the only one available.... still this merger is 50/50.... but i have a question
> 
> 
> does any xm people here want the merger to happen?
> 
> 
> because it seems to me the xm peeps are really negative about this whole thing....




Mostly those that are negative are O&A fans...


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> soon, internet radio will be introduced and then it wont be the only one available.... still this merger is 50/50.... but i have a question
> 
> 
> does any xm people here want the merger to happen?
> 
> 
> because it seems to me the xm peeps are really negative about this whole thing....



I've been for it for months...


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mostly those that are negative are O&A fans...



It really doesn't have anything to do with Stern/O&A. Most people are already with the service that provides them the content they want. So it comes down to hardware, where XM subscribers have nothing to gain.


----------



## barbie845

I listen to nothing but music on XM, and I love it. So channel wise I see nothing to be gained by merging with Sirius.... BUT I am for the merger because without it I doubt either company can survive.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It really doesn't have anything to do with Stern/O&A. Most people are already with the service that provides them the content they want. So it comes down to hardware, where XM subscribers have nothing to gain.




that why I said"mostly"

and most O&A fans are not for the merger.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> that why I said"mostly"
> 
> and most O&A fans are not for the merger.



So do you think that most non O&A fans with XM are for the merger?


----------



## Robert Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I listen to nothing but music on XM, and I love it. So channel wise I see nothing to be gained by merging with Sirius.... BUT I am for the merger because without it I doubt either company can survive.



I certainly hope that the resulting company will have at least as good a lineup of musical channels as XM offers today, or I will be very much against the merger.


And I hate O&A and stopped listening to Stern over 10 years ago...


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So do you think that most non O&A fans with XM are for the merger?




I think that most xm listeners that don't post on message boards could care less.


----------



## RaveD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MRinDenver* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is a huge leap for the mgmt of both companies. It won't happen, in my opinion. The legal hurdles are just too many, too high.



The same thing was said every other time Mel proposed a merger.


By the way, every merger Mel has attempted has been accomplished.


He would not have gone into this if he didn't feel there was a very strong likelihood that it would pass.


It really comes down to whether or not this country wants the satellite radio industry as a whole to succeed. XM and Sirius are wasting huge dollars competing with each other when in reality most consumers don't really have a choice. They "choose" whatever their car comes with. Sirius and XM are interchangable.


One day the birds will be obsolete and the content will be delivered by other means. When that happens maybe the company will spin off into a group of competing companies offering the same content but different delivery mechanisms. Then we have the cable TV model (which by the way, in most markets, is still a monopoly).


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think that most xm listeners that don't post on message boards could care less.



I bet most will care if their rates go up or if their music selection is affected.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I bet most will care if their rates go up or if their music selection is affected.




Rates will go up if this merger falls through.


----------



## vitod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Rates will go up if this merger falls through.



I don't think so. Mel made it perfectly clear that the savings from the merger will be distributed to the consumer. Is it going to hold up? Who knows. Things change. But if Mel wants to attract more subs, the price has to be right to be worth it to get exclusive content.


----------



## RAVEN56706

let the merger happen and then we shall see... i dont see it going up but who knows...


----------



## lovswr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vitod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mel Karmazin was on the Howard Stern show and HE says that the current receivers will be able to pick up both XM and Sirius content because the new company will share content/channels from each other. You don't need to get another receiver. So XM subs will get the HS show and vice versa.



More importantly he was on C-span in front of Congress. He stated that if it meant that he would have to sign something that says he would not raise the subscription price, in order for the merger to go through, then he would, gladly. He also stated the above in your quote as well.


----------



## lovswr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RAVEN56706* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> soon, internet radio will be introduced and then it wont be the only one available.... still this merger is 50/50.... but i have a question
> 
> 
> does any xm people here want the merger to happen?
> 
> 
> because it seems to me the xm peeps are really negative about this whole thing....




I do. I can't stand baseball & love football. I like to watch NASCAR, but listeneing to it gets a meh from me. I have only heard Sirius once & I think I like the music on XM better. As long as it stays 12.95 for the next 3 to 5 years I say all ahead full.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vitod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't think so. Mel made it perfectly clear that the savings from the merger will be distributed to the consumer. Is it going to hold up? Who knows. Things change. But if Mel wants to attract more subs, the price has to be right to be worth it to get exclusive content.



I said rates will go up IF THIS MERGER falls through!


----------



## vitod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I said rates will go up IF THIS MERGER falls through!










You said yes if there's a merge and I said no. What's the point of your post?


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vitod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said yes if there's a merge and I said no. What's the point of your post?




do you not know what "falls through" means.


it means if the merger does not happen(falls through) rates will go up.

thats my point!


((so yes,i agree with you))


----------



## vitod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> do you not know what "falls through" means.
> 
> 
> it means if the merger does not happen(falls through) rates will go up.
> 
> thats my point!
> 
> 
> ((so yes,i agree with you))



Thanks, I get it. Your post looked as to say if the merger happens, the rates will go up. Falls through...meaning merger happening. That's how I understood.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovswr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I do. I can't stand baseball & love football.



Since you love football, don't you watch it on TV? I don't understand why anyone gives a crap about football games on the radio. As someone who loves football, I got the NFL Sunday Ticket, so I could *WATCH* any football game that I wanted to. Even without Sunday ticket, I can't imagine wanting to listen to one game, when I could be watching another one.


----------



## Les Auber

The thing that would kill it for me is taking the advantage of having no commercial free competition to add commercials to the programming. I know some of the XM channels have commercials but most don't. The merger statement about still having competition in terrestrial broadcasting was specious in this regard. OTA radio rendered themselves pretty much useless to me years ago when they adopted their limited playlist, incessant DJ babble and ceaseless commercial business model. If XM-Sirius were to adopt this they will lose at least one subscriber as I can listen to babbling DJ's and commercials for free.


On a slightly different topic maybe lovswr is in the office, jobsite or driving when the game is on. Makes the TV a little difficult.


----------



## Gary*w*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Broderick* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Since you love football, don't you watch it on TV? I don't understand why anyone gives a crap about football games on the radio. As someone who loves football, I got the NFL Sunday Ticket, so I could *WATCH* any football game that I wanted to. Even without Sunday ticket, I can't imagine wanting to listen to one game, when I could be watching another one.



Here's a for instance:


I live in Nashville, I'm a Titans season ticket holder, I go to games 8 weeks a year. I'm also a Raiders fan. I get back to my car after a Titans game and fire up the Sirius to listen to the Raiders broadcast on my way home.


I love football but can't allways be in front of my TV.


----------



## barbie845




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary*w** /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's a for instance:
> 
> 
> I live in Nashville, I'm a Titans season ticket holder, I go to games 8 weeks a year. I'm also a Raiders fan. I get back to my car after a Titans game and fire up the Sirius to listen to the Raiders broadcast on my way home.
> 
> 
> I love football but can't allways be in front of my TV.



Here's the problem with your argument. Before 3 years ago you couldn't listen to Raider games on the radio anyway. What did you do then?


I've had XM for 5 years now, and I love it. But when the government considers this merger I doubt they are going to weigh each and every issue like if a small percentage of people can't pick up their favorite football team on OTA radio, or the fact that since FM has commercials it's not direct competition to XM/Sirius's commercial free selections.


I think the gov will just look at the general overall issue of can the consumer get news, sports, talk and music on other medias like AM/FM, Ipods, the internet, and maybe in the near future wireless.


----------



## Bill Broderick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your argument. Before 3 years ago you couldn't listen to Raider games on the radio anyway. What did you do then?



That's not a problem with his argument. You're right that he couldn't do that more than 3 years ago. But it probably something that he would have liked to be able to do. Now he can. However, in that situation I would think that a better solution would be to Tivo the Raider game on DirecTV Sunday ticket and watch it when I got home.


I still see baseball as being a much better sport for radio. There are 162 games per they all occur on different days of the week at different times and the "consistency" (for lack of a better word) of the sport makes is easier to more accurately imagine what is happening on the field. For example, we all know that when someone hits the ball, they are going to run to first base. When listening to a baseball game, and the announcer is talking about what the fielder is doing, you still know what the runner is doing.


With football, what you imagine is happening when listening on radio, always ends up being completely different than what actually happened.


----------



## barbie845

There's no doubt baseball is by far the best sport for the radio, but as far as a monopoly discussion is concerned that should be factor either.


My point is I doubt the FCC is going to care that a guy in NYC can't listen to his Raiders if this merger occurs and the guy feels he's priced out of the sat radio market. Nor will they worry if that same guy is a A's fan. There's other ways to watch or listen to the games or get the scores and high lites.


Even the government can't make everybody happy.


----------



## Gary*w*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your argument. Before 3 years ago you couldn't listen to Raider games on the radio anyway. What did you do then?
> 
> 
> I've had XM for 5 years now, and I love it. But when the government considers this merger I doubt they are going to weigh each and every issue like if a small percentage of people can't pick up their favorite football team on OTA radio, or the fact that since FM has commercials it's not direct competition to XM/Sirius's commercial free selections.
> 
> 
> I think the gov will just look at the general overall issue of can the consumer get news, sports, talk and music on other medias like AM/FM, Ipods, the internet, and maybe in the near future wireless.



It is something I would very much liked to have been able to do three + years ago.


I don't even subscribe to Sunday ticket, for a few reasons:


A) As a Titans season ticket holder I'm out the door at 8:30 - 9:30 AM to go to the games on Sundays (Sometimes earlier if I'm gonna hang with friends and tailgate). The games here start at noon. After the games, with stadium traffic I'm not home til near halftime of the late games (Later if I tailgate). Sat radio offers me a low cost, mobile alternitive to keep up with my west coast team.










B) Between the $$$ I lay out for the season tickets and the amount of time I'm *not* home on Sundays. It doesn't make real financial sense to pay for something I'd rarely get to watch. I'm one of those weirdos that actually prefers to see the games live anyway.


C) I'm a Comcast subscriber so it's not even availible on my TV provider.


----------



## hookbill

The FCC won't allow it. I say it's the exact same scenario as you had when Direct TV and Dish tried to merge. It's a monopoly. It won't happen. I'd bet a grand on it, no problem.


----------



## SKoprowski

What about the content argument? Most of XM and Sirus is their own content. Dtv and Dish are nothing but content distributors not providors.


----------



## barbie845

It's not the same of the failed Dish/DirecTV merger. Not even close.


There's MUCH more competition now,and because of wireless technology in the near future in the audio field then there was in the video field in 2002.


And as far as content goes there's nothing on satellite radio beside Stern you can't get elsewhere.


----------



## RaveD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hookbill* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The FCC won't allow it. I say it's the exact same scenario as you had when Direct TV and Dish tried to merge. It's a monopoly. It won't happen. I'd bet a grand on it, no problem.



Times were different back then. The Internet was not such a big threat. People were not able to download videos to their computers. FiOS TV did not exist.


You also had two profitable companies who wanted to be more profitable, not two companies losing money fighting for their long-term existence.


The FCC made a mistake not allowing that merger. The competition is not between Dish and Echo, it's between Satellite TV and Cable TV, and increasingly, Internet TV.


They shouldn't make the same mistake again.


----------



## T Heller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaveD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Times were different back then...you also [didn't have] two companies losing money fighting for their long-term existence.



There are many differences between the two proposals; I believe you've hit on the key one. Here's a letter to the members of this panel I crafted after listening (over XM) to the full hearing.


Feel free to post a comment - or, better yet, write them directly yourselves.


=========

The Honorable Representative John Conyers

Chairman, Anti-Trust Task Force

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

Washington, D.C. 20515



Re: Comments on proposed XM-Sirius merger



March 2, 2007



Dear Representative Conyers:



Let me say it was on satellite radio that I learned of and listened to the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Task Force's hearing on this proposed merger. (I am an XM subscriber.)


I'm confident I would not have learned of the hearing --nor would I have been able to listen to it-- through any other medium readily available to me: not by newspaper, not by terrestrial radio and not by broadcast television. Nor by the internet, despite my habit of browsing ten major newspapers daily.


In short, I was able to follow the committee's hearing in full only because of satellite radio, specifically XM and its C-SPAN channel. I am extremely grateful that satellite radio was able to fill this niche.


The following morning's reports in the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post failed to provide the fine-grain resolution that satellite radio afforded me. On satellite radio, the invited panelists and the concerns raised by committee members were not parsed by a reporter nor trimmed by an editor. Not even National Public Radio could have fully exposed me to this hearing because they simply can't devote that much bandwidth to any one topic. But satellite radio can.


Accordingly I ask members of Congress keep foremost in mind that no existing traditional media outlet, commercial or non-commercial, has the capabilities --some still undeployed-- offered by new-technology services like satellite radio.



My purpose in writing, though, is not to laud XM radio and C-SPAN, but to offer my personal observations on a number of dimensions related to the current state of affairs in satellite radio touched upon, however briefly, during the committee's hearing.


Please allow me the following essay that I believe appropriately frames this issue. I hope you will find these thoughts to be of value to you.


First, I would issue a caution to lawmakers and regulatory agencies that they not fall into a complacent view of media services. Specifically, they should not deem services --particularly terrestrial broadcast radio-- to be 'competitive' simply because it exists across America's landscape in large numbers. The fact that commonplace programming is replicated in one market after another from coast to coast, doesn't make it competitive (except perhaps solely in the sale of commercial advertising.) Despite 10,000 or so radio stations in the U.S., there is a paucity of truly distinctive broadcast services --and exceedingly few national programs-- available over terrestrial radio.


Second, just as the number of participants alone cannot evidence genuine competition, effective competition cannot be realistically defined without reference to the sensibility and expectations of consumers. If a normal person finds that a product or service poses a risk that erodes the perceived value of that product, it's highly doubtful that the product or service can genuinely be considered competitive in today's consumer markets. Yet today, prospective purchasers of satellite radio face just such a risk -- a risk that can dissuade a consumer from purchasing the service.



This latter consumer dilemna has now migrated well upstream, landing in the laps of the nation's automakers who now find themselves facing the same quandary that perplexed early-adopter satellite radio consumers. The auto industry must now choose between offering XM or Sirius receivers in their new car models because, for all practical effect, satellite radio is either XM or Sirius under the constraints currently imposed by law and regulation.


I'm confident automakers don't like being forced into making that choice for their customers. It's a no-win situation, because whichever satellite radio service they install in their vehicles, it can't meet all their consumers' expectations. (And automakers aren't in the business of not meeting consumer expectations.) While one satellite radio service can satisfy baseball fans, the other can satisfy football fans. But neither satisfies the many who are fans of both.


In the eyes of the auto manufacturers, installing both services is simply not practical. This presents a serious limitation impinging on consumer choice in the purchase of an automobile, a large-ticket, highly-personalized purchase if ever there was one. Potential buyers aren't enthusiastic to learn that the installed satellite radio can only deliver one -not both- of their favorite sports. They rightly consider this confusing.


I suspect this automaker quandary has propelled much of the desire for XM and Sirius to seek a merger. (Of course, slower-than-anticipated market penetration and continuing financial loses has provided additional impetus.) No more so than consumers, the nation's automakers shouldn't be needlessly forced into choosing between a rock and a hard spot.



A 'win-win' situation would make satellite radio its own radio band, enabling every satellite receiver to tune into all available programming on the band. This would avoid any requirement that automakers install a too-expensive, needlessly complex dual-band receiver so that their customers can tune into both baseball and football (and all other currently exclusive programming).


Forcing an overly-complex, functionally redundant and needlessly expensive, over-engineered "dual-band" receiver1 into the dashboards of new cars is neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure vibrant competition in the satellite radio band. That instead would be a clumsy regulatory 'solution' serving only to entrench the inherently-flawed initial duopoly industry-structure2 imposed by regulators. It won't promise to stem the flow of red-ink into XM's and Sirius' ledgers nor will it accelerate the pace of consumer acceptance.


A single-band receiver is fully capable of pulling in all programming --XM, Sirius or any other-- in the satellite band. And auto manufacturers will be happy to install and make available to customers a single-band satellite radio receiver within the millions of new cars manufactured and sold every year. So too will after-market electronics manufacturers. Treating satellite radio as a distinct frequency band is the only way that successful levels of consumer uptake of this new national broadcast service will occur.


There's no compelling reason or need to continue requiring that consumers desiring to listen to both baseball and football (or any other heretofore exclusive XM or Sirius programming) must pay twice as much as necessary than if a single ubiquitous, nationwide satellite radio service were available in the U.S.. Yet this Hobson's choice (one inherently rooted in the current duopoly2 structure imposed by regulation upon satellite radio service) is the inevitable result if XM and Sirius are required to maintain a regulatory fantasy that they are competing services rather than a new radio band -- a single band that potentially can be populated by a variety of competing programming, just as how the FM and AM radio bands have evolved.


Unless lawmakers and regulators alike recognize that satellite radio is, essentially, an entirely new radio band, they will consign satellite technology's great promise to an excruciating continued economic limbo characterized by slow consumer uptake, needlessly high monthly subscription rates and an unresolved, perplexing irritation to both consumers and the auto industry. This would only endanger the economic viability of the remarkable capacity of these satellite bands and prematurely bring to a halt the noteworthy innovation these two companies and their supporting electronics manufacturers have brought to America's languishing, rather undistinguished --and now ever more concentrated and increasingly homogeneous-- radio industry. That would constitute a gross regulatory failure.


The artificially-created separation of and forced competition between two services that share the satellite-band has created the untoward consequences which have brought satellite radio back to its birthplace, the corridors of Washington, D.C. Maintaining an artifice first crafted in 1997 only promises to prolong and exacerbate these consequences. If appropriate conditions can be devised, the merger of these two service providers need not threaten consumer interest in accessing a wide variety of national programming and need not preclude other services from entering the satellite-band.



Sincerely,



Thomas A. Heller

Columbus, Indiana



Footnote 1: Such a "dual-band" receiver would require duplicate circuitry for signal decoding, demodulation, de-encryption and error-correction.


Footnote 2: The imposed duopoly market structures initially created for other nascent communication services have not displayed as detrimental an effect on consumer acceptance and industry growth as it has to date in satellite radio. While this principally was due to a uniquely fortuitous technical factor (briefly discussed herein), the ordinarily undesirable characteristics of duopoly markets was also masked by consumers' demonstrated low price elasticity for mobile telephone service.


In the instance of mobile telephony, the network segregation/fragmentation outcome (i.e. the proliferation of technologically non-compatible wireless systems like TDMA, CDMA and GSM that naturally resulted from a regulatory-imposed duopoly market structure) was overcome only by each system's ability to interconnect with the pre-existing and ubiquitous public switched telephone network (PSTN). Without this interconnection, a customer of one wireless carrier wouldn't be able to talk wirelessly with a customer of a competing wireless carrier, even if they lived across the street from each other.


Absent the availability of PSTN as an interconnecting intermediary, the technological incompatibilities between the various wireless telephone systems would have dramatically impaired the market acceptance and economic health of mobile telephony which once, like satellite radio, was a nascent communications industry.


As a direct satellite-to-receiver broadcast medium, however, satellite radio has no possibility of a nation-girdling interconnecting intermediary offering the same sort of 'saving grace' PSTN did for mobile telephony. The incompatible, competing and financially struggling satellite radio services that resulted from satellite radio's imposed duopoly can't be 'stitched together' other than by unifying their respective frequency bands.


----------



## Gary*w*

*F.C.C. Chief Questioning Radio Deal*



By STEPHEN LABATON

Published: March 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 6 Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has privately questioned recent Congressional testimony by the architect of a proposed merger of the nation's two satellite radio companies that subscribers would both pay the same monthly rate and receive significantly more programming.


As he sought to sell the proposed merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio to Congress, and by extension to regulators like Mr. Martin, Mel Karmazin, the chief executive of Sirius, vowed last Wednesday that prices would not be raised and that listeners would benefit enormously by getting the best programming from both companies.


But in separate conversations with two people after Mr. Karmazin's testimony to a House committee, Mr. Martin said that subscribers may be surprised to learn they may actually have to pay more than the current monthly rate of $12.95 if, for example, they want to receive all the games of Major League Baseball (now available only on XM) as well as all the professional football games (now only on Sirius).


Mr. Karmazin, reached on Tuesday, said his testimony was not misleading and that he meant to say two things: subscribers wanting to keep their existing service would not face a price increase, and listeners who wanted the best of both services would pay less than the combined rate of $25.90.


Mr. Martin, in an interview on Tuesday, suggested that the details had not been clear from the testimony. He emphasized that he was not questioning the motives or candor of Mr. Karmazin but that there was a need for greater clarity over what was being proposed for fees and programming.


The commission will need to determine the benefits to consumers of this deal, and in doing that, we will need to carefully look at what price will be frozen and what consumers will be getting for that price, Mr. Martin said, adding that the hearing left those issues unclear. When they talk about freezing rates and lowering rates, are they talking about it in terms of the current rate of $12.95 for each service, or are they referring to the combined rate of $25.90?


The two people who talked to Mr. Martin one working to get the deal done and the other a critic said they understood his comments to reflect his skepticism about both the deal and the way it was being sold in Washington as more beneficial to consumers than it might actually be. The two did not want to be identified because they said these were private conversations.


Mr. Martin said that the proposed deal had not even been filed with the commission yet, and that he would carefully consider the arguments of both the supporters and the opponents before reaching a decision.


The $13 billion proposed deal cannot be completed without the permission of antitrust lawyers at the Justice Department and a majority of the five commissioners at the F.C.C.


The commission gave the two companies spectrum licenses for the satellite radio services in the 1990s on the condition that they not merge, and it would have to waive that condition for the deal to go forward.


Mr. Martin has said that the companies have a high hurdle to conquer in persuading the commission that the deal would be in the public interest.


At last week's hearing before the antitrust task force of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Karmazin insisted that subscribers could count on a significantly greater offering of programs and no increase in prices. That juxtaposition led some lawmakers to conclude that consumers who pay the same monthly fee for one service would be getting the benefits of the other.


This merger will give people more choice than they have before and lower prices and, very importantly, less confusion, Mr. Karmazin testified. Our vision of the way it works is that if you are an XM subscriber, you have the Major League Baseball, you have whatever number of channels available to you now. But what we contemplate is that we would take some other content, and again we have to work with our content partners. But the hope would be that we would get Nascar to agree to be on XM as well. We'll get the N.F.L. to agree to be on XM as well.


At another point in the hearing, he said, We are saying we are not going to raise our price, and we're going to offer the consumer something that they have not had before.


Critics said that the companies had not been candid about their intentions to offer more services for more than $12.95.


It's a sleight of hand going on here, said Gene Kimmelman, vice president for federal affairs at Consumers Union, which opposes the merger. They highlight the price freeze for the old package. They're leaving the consumer with the impression of a price freeze. They say you will get the best of both services. But they never tell you what the rate will be for that.


Regardless of what Mr. Karmazin intended, Mr. Kimmelman went on, he has left many consumers with the impression they will receive a combined package of Sirius and XM channels for $12.95, when in reality the price will probably be much higher.


Mr. Karmazin is scheduled to appear before a second Congressional panel on Wednesday.


In the interview on Tuesday afternoon, he said he thought he had been clear that to get the best of both XM and Sirius, consumers would have to pay more than the monthly rate of $12.95, but less than the combined rate of $25.90. Consumers who just want to stay with their existing lineup would be guaranteed the same price, he said.


If the merger is approved there will be lower prices and more choice, Mr. Karmazin said. If the merger is not approved, there is no discussion on price and there is no discussion about more choices.



From N.Y Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/bu...syahoo&emc=rss


----------



## T Heller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary*w** /forum/post/0
> 
> *F.C.C. Chief Questioning Radio Deal*



That's a good piece, Gary; thanks for posting (tho' this forum seems more concerned with Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony).


The NYTimes story raises some pertinent questions and will help the discussion proceed. I'll be interested to listen to/watch the upcoming hearing.


----------



## RaveD

Thankfully the FCC has no say on this merger.


----------



## G-star




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaveD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thankfully the FCC has no say on this merger.



huh? time to get your facts straight:



> Quote:
> The $13 billion proposed deal cannot be completed without the permission of antitrust lawyers at the Justice Department and a majority of the five commissioners at the F.C.C.


----------



## RAVEN56706

yeah... its a tough call for mel.... but in the end... he has to be clear of what he wants from the deal and what it entitles the consumer


----------



## BZiggyZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary*w** /forum/post/0
> 
> *F.C.C. Chief Questioning Radio Deal*
> 
> 
> In the interview on Tuesday afternoon, he said he thought he had been clear that to get the best of both XM and Sirius, consumers would have to pay more than the monthly rate of $12.95, but less than the combined rate of $25.90. Consumers who just want to stay with their existing lineup would be guaranteed the same price, he said.



Thus ends my interest in this merger. I'm not paying extra for Sirius content.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BZiggyZ* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thus ends my interest in this merger. I'm not paying extra for Sirius content.



Consumers who just want to stay with their existing lineup would be guaranteed the same price, he said.


----------



## BZiggyZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Consumers who just want to stay with their existing lineup would be guaranteed the same price, he said.



Right, I got that. In other words, I have no interest in buying extra Sirius channels on an a la carte basis over and above my standard XM subscription price. Mel's previous comments made it sound like content would be combined and offered at no additional charge.


----------



## barbie845

I guessing, because so far all this pricing crab is confusing. But anyway..


After the merger if you want XM's existing line-up it's what it is now. $13. And there will probably be a deal if you want both full line-ups combined, maybe $24.. Whatever...


Same with Sirius..


But with the ala carte pricing lets say I want XM's music package, maybe 7.99.. Plus I want Sirius's NFL, maybe $3.99, and Stern, maybe another $3.99.. So I'd be paying about $16 a month..And vise versa if you have Sirius's basic package but want the MLB, etc.


Thats the way I have taken all of Mel's talk so far..


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barbie845* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I guessing, because so far all this pricing crab is confusing. But anyway..
> 
> 
> After the merger if you want XM's existing line-up it's what it is now. $13. And there will probably be a deal if you want both full line-ups combined, maybe $24.. Whatever...
> 
> 
> Same with Sirius..
> 
> 
> But with the ala carte pricing lets say I want XM's music package, maybe 7.99.. Plus I want Sirius's NFL, maybe $3.99, and Stern, maybe another $3.99.. So I'd be paying about $16 a month..And vise versa if you have Sirius's basic package but want the MLB, etc.
> 
> 
> Thats the way I have taken all of Mel's talk so far..




I new barbie845 wanted Stern


----------



## Gary*w*

Mel Karmazin was in front of congress again yesterday answering questions about the Sat. radio merger. I found a couple articles on the merger that I still found a bit vague on the pricing issue.

From the Washington Post :

_*XM, Sirius Pitch Merger to Hill*_


By Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 8, 2007; Page D04


The price of satellite radio service has become a sensitive topic in the debate over whether the nation's two space-based radio companies should be allowed to merge, and lawmakers zeroed in on it yesterday.


XM Satellite Radio Holdings of the District and Sirius Satellite Radio have charged customers $12.95 a month for all-or-nothing access to their many channels for several years. If federal regulators permit the companies to merge, listeners may have more options, at prices above and below that figure, executives told a House panel yesterday.


The Federal Communications Commission licensed the companies in 1997 on the condition they stay separate to encourage competition. But their executives say the audio-entertainment field has become so fiercely competitive that they should be allowed to join forces.


Sirius chief executive Mel Karmazin tried to reassure House members yesterday that customers would not be gouged if the FCC approves the merger. To receive all of XM's and all of Sirius's content now, a customer must have two receivers and pay $25.90 a month, Karmazin told the telecommunications subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Under a merger, he said, "prices will drop significantly from that." The discount, he said, probably would be "closer to 10 [dollars] than to 2."


Customers seeking fewer channels would be able to order such service at a yet-to-be-determined amount less than $12.95 a month, said Karmazin, who would be chief executive of the merged company.


Karmazin's earlier testimony to House members left some with the impression that a merged XM-Sirius company would not raise monthly subscription rates above $12.95, even if content from the two companies were combined.


The confusion led to an indirect rebuke of Sirius this week by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, a Republican. Martin told the New York Times that some consumers may be surprised to learn a combined XM-Sirius package might cost more than $12.95 a month. Martin's office said yesterday he had no further comment on the matter.


Groups representing broadcasters and consumers denounced the proposed merger at yesterday's House hearing. The plan has "very severe anti-competitive" implications, said Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union.


Peter H. Smyth, president and chief executive of Boston-based Greater Media, which owns 20 radio stations in four states, said a Sirius-XM merger would lead to less competition, higher subscription fees and losses of jobs and innovations.


Karmazin said consumers would benefit from more choices, such as having the National Football League and Major League Baseball on one satellite network. The NFL is now on Sirius only and baseball is on XM.


____________________________________________________________ _____
And this article from Reuters :

*Sirius to charge less than $26/month post merger*

By Rachelle Younglai

Wed Mar 7, 10:14 PM ET




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. on Wednesday tried to clear up confusion over the cost of its service after buying rival XM Satellite Radio Inc. by telling lawmakers that it would be less than $25.90, the price of two services combined.


"If our merger is approved, we will offer consumers a much more attractive choice -- the best of each service on one radio at a price well below the cost of the two services today," Sirius Chief Executive Mel Karmazin told a House telecommunications subcommittee hearing.


Karmazin did not say specifically what the new price would be, except that there will be a "significant discount." XM and Sirius each charge subscribers $12.95 monthly.


When asked if the discount would be around $10 or $2, Karmazin said it "looks closer to 10 than to two."


Last week, Karmazin told a House Judiciary antitrust committee hearing that Sirius was ready to make concessions in order to get the deal approved, such as capping prices.


During the hearing on Wednesday, Karmazin tried to clarify what the price of the combined services would be over what the price of the separate services would be after the merger.


"There was some confusion on what we said about pricing," he said, pointing out that an XM or Sirius subscriber paying the $12.95 fee per month would not pay more for the same service after the merger.


"There is an opportunity to pay less" than $12.95, Karmazin said. "If you like the idea of having some content from Sirius and some content from XM, where today you have to buy (both services) and pay $12.95 each ... we will make an offering for less than the combined cost."


Sirius offers channels that include shock jock Howard Stern and Nascar auto racing while XM has programing like Major League Baseball and talk show host Oprah Winfrey.


The proposed deal needs to be approved by the Justice Department's antitrust office as well as the Federal Communications Commission, which issued the satellite radio licenses in 1997 on the condition that the two companies would never merge.


The FCC has said it would consider waiving that rule if asked. The deal does not need approval from lawmakers, but they could pressure the regulators.


Consumer groups have criticized the proposed deal, saying it could mean higher prices and obsolete equipment for some subscribers.


However, the companies say the merger will not hurt consumers because satellite radio faces competition from other forms of audio like traditional AM/FM radio and personal audio players -- an assertion the Consumers Union derides.


"While AM/FM radio, iPods and other music recording and listening devices can offer similar prepackaged music or local signals similar to what satellite radio offers, none of them can offer immediate national programing, including live professional sports games from across the country to listeners across the nation," Consumers Union Vice President Gene Kimmelman said.


----------



## Gary*w*

Here's another article that could have a direct bearing on the merger deal:

*Will Web Radio Get Turned Off?*

Louis Hau, 03.07.07, 6:00 AM ET


Traditional radio may be losing its audience, but Internet radio stations--or more accurately, Web sites that stream music over the Web--are growing in popularity. But their commercial prospects could worsen under new rules that will raise their costs dramatically.


Last week the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board, an obscure arm of the Library of Congress, voted to more than double the fees Web sites that stream music must pay record companies.The higher rates will affect all Internet radio businesses, from mom-and-pop commercial Webcasters to big portal destinations such as Time Warner's (nyse: TWX - news - people ) AOL and Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ); it will also affect traditional and satellite radio companies that provide online feeds of their broadcasts.


Under the decision, Internet radio businesses will have to increase the royalty they pay for each song they stream from .08 cents in 2006 to .19 cents in 2010. That doesn't sound like much, but given the large number of songs that they stream, Web music companies say the cost could be enough to hobble their industry.


"If we do not come up with a way to avoid paying these royalties, we're going to have to go out of business,'' said Bill Goldsmith, who runs Internet radio station RadioParadise.com in Paradise, Calif. "There's absolutely no way we could survive under this rate structure.''


Goldsmith said his company has been profitable since 2003, but predicted the new royalty rates would quickly put it in the red. While he wouldn't disclose specific numbers, he said his station's annual royalty fees would eclipse its annual revenue.


Andy Lipset, managing director of Ronning Lipset Radio, a New York company that sells online radio advertising, said the new rates will hinder the development of an emerging industry that is finally gaining traction with advertisers.


"What these royalty rates do is cripple a business just getting its start,'' Lipset said. "It's really just learning how to walk."


SoundExchange, a former subsidiary of the Recording Industry Association of America, collects the royalties and distributes half of the fees to the performers on the recordings and the other half to the recordings' copyright owners, which are usually record labels.


SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson said the new royalty rates for Internet radio were balanced and fair, particularly given the growing influx of advertising money into the market.


Bridge Ratings estimates that Internet radio stations and online simulcasts of terrestrial radio broadcasts had about 68 million weekly listeners in 2006, up 31% from 2005, and more than seven times the audience for satellite radio. By 2010, Bridge expects that audience to grow to about 196 million weekly listeners.


Advertisers have been taking notice of this growing listener base. Internet radio stations generated about $500 million in ad revenue in 2006, J.P. Morgan estimated in a report on the industry in January. That figure was dwarfed by the $20 billion traditional radio advertising market, but was 10 times larger than the estimated $50 million that online radio generated in 2003.


Internet radio ad rates are also climbing. J.P. Morgan estimated that the cost of reaching 1,000 listeners, or CPM, via music Web sites rose from $1 in 2003 to $5.59 in 2006. But even larger Internet radio companies, who have been the chief beneficaries of the growing ad market, may have a hard time with the new fees. David Oxenford, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is representing small Webcasters, said the higher rates raise the question of whether big Web portals, such as Yahoo! and AOL, will continue to offer free Internet radio stations.


Representatives for AOL and Yahoo! declined to comment on the new rates, referring all queries to the Digital Media Association, a trade group that represents online audio and video companies. In a statement, Jonathan Potter, the association's executive director, warned that the association's members will have to reevaluate "the viability of the Internet radio business.''


Another key provision of the Copyright Royalty Board's rate decision stipulates that Internet radio stations must pay an annual fee of $500 for every music channel they operate. Both SoundExchange and Internet radio stations are awaiting clarification on what the board deems to be a "channel" because it could have significant ramifications for music services like Pandora that provide customized audio streams for listeners based on their music preferences.


In addition to streaming music on its own Web site, Pandora also powers the Internet radio service on Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people )'s MSN portal.


"The rates are disastrous,'' Pandora Chief Executive Joe Kennedy said in a statement. "I'm not aware of any Internet radio service that believes they can sustain a business at the rates set by this decision. The only reason the services are not shutting down today is the belief that rationality will ultimately prevail here, either through appeal or Congressional intervention."


Because the total audience for Internet radio far exceeds that of satellite radio, Oxenford said the impact of the new royalty rates could become an issue in the Federal Communications Commission's deliberations regarding the proposed merger between XM Satellite Radio (nasdaq: XMSR - news - people ) and Sirius Satellite Radio (nasdaq: SIRI - news - people ).


XM and Sirius, which are eager to play down antitrust concerns surrounding their planned merger, regularly cite Internet radio as one of the competitive challenges they face.


The new Internet radio royalty rates "could potentially impact all sorts of government decisions where they're considering market power in the audio delivery marketplace,'' Oxenford said.


As it happens, the Copyright Royalty Board is also expected by the end of the year to set performance royalty rates for music broadcast via satellite by XM and Sirius.


Andy Lipset of Ronning Lipset Radio said his company has been able to persuade increasing numbers of traditional radio advertisers to buy online radio ads. One of the key hurdles has been the fact that the vast majority of traditional radio advertising is aimed at a local market, whereas Internet radio has a national, and even international, reach.


"The market was really starting to take hold,'' Lipset said."You're going to have guys go away,'' he said. "They're going to look at the numbers, and they're going to say, 'There's no way this is going to happen.' "


From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...ml?partner=rss 


__________________________________________________________



Both XM & Sirius stream large chunks of their content on line. Who would benifit from driving their costs up?


If Sat radio does compete with internet radio what does that do to the anti -trust arguments?


----------

