digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at washingtonpost.com

FCC approves Sirius Satellite acquisition of XM

washingtonpost.com — Sirius Satellite Radio purchase of XM Satellite Radio was approved with conditions by U.S. communications regulators on Friday, clearing the way for a deal that will leave just one U.S. satellite radio service.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gquaglia, on 07/26/2008, -7/+79Its about ***** time! And ***** you NAB. How many thousands of dollars did you put in politician's pockets to stop this.
    • xevidentx, on 07/26/2008, -2/+5agreed, ***** goldman sachs for making this stock plummet to $1.70 and ***** clearchannel and HD radio supporters for trying to bring down these great companies!

      long live satellite radio! i have both sirius and XM right now, can't wait to pick and choose channels from both services
      • mrmacky, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2You think HD Radio supporters are competing with satellite radio?

        HD radio and satellite are two entirely different technologies marketed to two entirely different groups.

        HD Radio is meant to be the next step for the AM/FM band, saying HD Radio is trying to bring down satellite is like saying current-gen radio is trying to bring down satellite.

        If someone /wants/ satellite - HD Radio would not be similar in terms of content or programming, so no... HD Radio supporters are not trying to undermine satellite.
      • rossisdead, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah really, xevident do you even know what you're talking about? I loved satellite radio when I had it, but get back to me when it's capable of doing local broadcasts like HD radio.
    • geddon, on 07/26/2008, -6/+5Once Americans begin fighting for the rights of corporations to consolidate into massive money-making conglomerations, the terrorists have already won.
      • xevidentx, on 07/26/2008, -0/+7except that sat rad companies barely make any money because of their upfront costs to get the technology to where it is today, not to mention that it was their OWN money used to develop sat rad and not taxpayer money. they shouldn't have made any compromises for the FCC. no one is making you use it either, so get over yourself buddy and get back to fighting the war on terror
      • mecharabbit, on 07/26/2008, -1/+4As Howard Stern says frequently on his show, this whole process has got to leave us all with less faith in the integrity of our government than we already had. Howard stated that he will never vote for any Democrats again because of the fact that the two Democrats on the FCC board were the only ones who objected to the merger. I think that's a little extreme, and I hope those two people are just greedy ***** on the take for the NAB, and not a reflection of some broader anti-business stance on the part of the Democratic party.
      • fafaforza, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Yes, we should stick to liberal ideals and let both go out of business so that we're stuck with corrupt FM radio where payoffs are the norm, or our iPod, wich mostly stolen music. Less consumer choice 'cause you can't get over the fact that an executive will make more money from these companies than you will from your job. If you're upset about this fact, quit your 9-5 and start a business of your own. No one will hand anything to you.
      • geddon, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1The web has already handed us some of incredible resources to connect with well-known artists, and purchase their music directly from the source.

        There are a handful of places but I'm a fan of theSixtyOne:

        www.thesixtyone.com

        Support the Artists. Not the Conglomerations.
    • antoniuk, on 07/26/2008, -1/+4Finally! This will only make Sirius better. I am [more] glad I have it now
    • shockoj7, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3haha i find it funny because it was the two democrats that voted against the merger...
      • gquaglia, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Guess they were more receptive to the payoffs the NAB lobbyists were offering.
  • profchaos155, on 07/26/2008, -8/+49Now I can finally get Howard Stern AND Oprah!
  • kelder27, on 07/26/2008, -13/+25I love sirius radio. Anything that gets good radio to more people is a step up. Don't tell the new monopoly, but I would pay 50.00$ a month to not listen to commercials.
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -4/+14NOT a monopoly. Get the NAB propaganda outta your head!
      • samthurston, on 07/26/2008, -1/+6If there's only one provider in a market (for instance, satellite radio) then it is a monopoly. It's not propaganda, it's the definition of the word.
      • eschompthis, on 07/26/2008, -6/+1Do you need satellite ***** radio!!! NO!! its not a ***** monopoly you dumb *****. Plus they have said that they can now give more programming to the public for less. Is apple a monopoly because they dont distribute their OS to work with any pc? after all they are the only people providing OSX.
      • cheappop, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3@samthurston

        You are half right. The only difference is that they have not made clear efforts to take out every competitor. We have no evidence of monopolistic tendencies (I.E. Bell Telephone). This is only one buyout, but that doesn't mean another, superior service couldn't come around. It also isn't like the service is substandard, either. Getting Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony on the same service is ***** amazing.
      • toxicshok, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2The problem with calling it a monopoly is that: one its very hard to start a sat radio company, two sat radio has many other competitors such as regular radio, CDs, and iPods
      • threemagic, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@monopoly

        Then anyone that produces a new product is a monopoly. They do not provide a service you have to have.

        In your definition then HBO is a monopoly. They are the only pay channel that has certain movies. Shouldn't all pay channels have ALL movies to be fair? HBO was once the ONLY player in the pay cable market. They weren't a monopoly then either.. they were a pioneer.
    • devtrash, on 07/26/2008, -1/+9Oh are you in for a shock. commercial free? Something's gonna have to pay for this deal, and since prices are capped for 3 years, what else is there?
      • Skurt, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1There are commercials on the NON music channels, that's how it gets paid for...

        My Sirius MUSIC channels rarely have any 'voice' breaks/station identification
    • geddon, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1It's a massive corporate conglomeration that will seek to fight for the rights of DRM.

      Get the Capitalist propaganda outta your head!
      • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4What in the flying ***** are you babbling about? You don't even know what DRM means! Explain to me what DRM has to do with Satellite radio? You can't listen to it unless you have a receiver? Well, then MP3s are DRM because you can't listen to them w/o a MP3 player!
        And what about 2 out of the 1000's of audio delivery companies merging to stay alive is a "MASSIVE CORPORATE CONGLOMERATION"?
        The NAB proved SiriusXM's point by spending millions to shovel out BS about "It's a monopoly!", and paying off gov officials to stall the merger long enough so that either one or both would collapse. The Exxon/Mobile merger took 4 months, and this took 18! If terrestrial radio was against the merger, then it's NOT a monopoly by definition!
      • JonGalt, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2LOL, and he thinks capitalism is bad...double the douche.
      • geddon, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I said nothing about a monopoly, and DRM-free music means sharing your work without infringing upon the "rights" of corporations to make a dime off every copy in existence.

        Puh-leaze get the Corporate rhetoric out of your skullz and look at how creativity spread freely affects our culture:

        www.thesixtyone.com
    • rossisdead, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2I sure as ***** wouldn't pay $50 a month for radio. $50 is not worth the commercial free aspect of it in the slightest.
      • Skurt, on 07/27/2008, -1/+0it's 12.95 per month, unless you do like I did and have the lifetime setup. No monthly payments ever...

        ever
      • rossisdead, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I know, I used to have to XM. I'm responding to the dude above me that said he'd pay $50 a month for it.
  • shertzerj, on 07/26/2008, -3/+41I've been a Sirius subscriber for many years now, and although I love most of the programming, there are several stations that XM does much better (90s rock, electronic, and a few others), and it would be awesome to get to customize my channel list with the a la carte system they're promising. I just hope the hardware that's out there now will be able to facilitate that properly.
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Not only is having the hardware remain compatible part of the deal, but it's common sense to keep it compatible.
    • smacksaw, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3I have them both, side-by-side in both of my cars and I think you're suffering from the whole "grass is greener" thing...

      XM is bizarre. And I listen to the same channels you are talking about. XM is constantly taking a totally obscure artist on a mainstream channel and then playing a deep album cut that was never worthy of single airplay to begin with.

      Sirius hired radio personalities. They hired people who know how to do radio programming. I have no idea who XM hired to do their programming, but they don't know anything about radio.

      Sirius has people working off of an intelligent list. XM has a list of every song from every artist and just puts it on "shuffle" and hits play. I guess if you like totally random 90's rock, electronic and a few others, XM is right up your alley. But everyone I know that got XM with their car canceled it - and some of them actually bought Sirius. They all had the same complaint: "what in the hell is XM playing now?"

      Except for Squizz, I won't miss anything from XM. I just want my damned MLB on Sirius.
      • MtheoryX, on 07/26/2008, -2/+4Squizz and Opie & Anthony FTW!!
      • seinman, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2@smacksaw:

        You've just listed the very reason I prefer XM to Sirius. Sirius is the same ol' songs I already know and hear all the time on FM. XM introduces me to music i've never heard.

        When people ask me which they should buy, I usually explain it like this: if you like the music on FM radio, but don't like the commercials, get Sirius. If you want to hear a wider selection of tracks with fewer big hits mixed in, XM. Of course, if you're buying it for the talk or sports selection, pick whichever one has the personalities/leagues you want to hear. This is why i'm excited about the merger; I get to keep XM's (in my opinion) better music channels, and also get NFL broadcasts.
      • threemagic, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Heidi Selexa: leave a little booty cuz a little booty is nice

        (late night 80's DJ on XM)
  • michaelwong38, on 07/26/2008, -6/+26took em long enough
    • shoook, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1Since when do customers celebrate when a monopoly is formed? I really wish this would have fallen through.
      • geoboy, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1How about when it benefits the consumer? But to say this merger creates a monopoly would imply that there is no competition to their business.
    • toxicshok, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1A monopoly it is not. This so called "monopoly" has many different competitors from regular radio, to HD radio, to CDs, MP3s, iPods, and any other form of music delivery.
  • MillionsLivio, on 07/26/2008, -5/+22This should have happened a year ago...
  • Junkey, on 07/26/2008, -21/+155Why so Sirius?
    • RBrenner14, on 07/26/2008, -12/+19Why would anyone Digg this comment down?
    • samhorn, on 07/26/2008, -4/+1i'm just glad they xminated the deal further
  • Carbonlord, on 07/26/2008, -6/+20Now I don't have to pick my car, dependent on whether I like the satellite company:)
    • TheBigBad, on 07/26/2008, -4/+8You didn't have to before either. You do you realize that you can simply get satellite radio installed don't you?
      • smacksaw, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2It's not the same as the factory setup. I have 4 vents on both of my cars and only 2 of those vents in each car are unblocked by satellite radios.
      • EtherGnat, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2There are plenty of in-dash units that support XM or Sirius.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 07/26/2008, -2/+9Keeping my fingers crossed that we get the Underground Garage on the DirecTV feed ...
  • PouyaZ, on 07/26/2008, -3/+32Jim Cramer is going to do a back flip
    • Ajnabee4U, on 07/26/2008, -5/+6Cramer is the most reckless and dodgy analyst on CNBC and with the help of this douchey show he is making things worst in the market.
  • Minarchian, on 07/26/2008, -32/+6Whoopie!!

    Another monopoly to take away choice and competition!
    • chris4404, on 07/26/2008, -3/+14Read the conditions of the merger,
      * A 3-year price freeze, but one that still allows the companies to pass through programming costs
      * A la carte and family-friendly programming offerings
      * Commitment to interoperable and open receivers
      * The 8% set-aside (24 channels) for noncommercial and commercial independent programmers.

      Seems like a winner to me.
      • Minarchian, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Whoopie!

        Government regulation of the content of a subscription service!

        Nice precedent for them isn't it?

        Now they can go after satellite TV and any other subscription service.

        You should be proud!
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -3/+24Yes! Cause it's impossible play your ipod, regular radio, HD radio, CD, tape player, or internet radio in a car!
      Dip-*****...
    • smacksaw, on 07/26/2008, -3/+6You should try commenting on a case-by-case basis, using intellect and reason to form your response as opposed to always parroting the same thoughtless, partisan mantras.

      Seriously man. There's idealism, and then there's the real world. Satellite radio is like a remote town of 200 people having 4 gas stations. It's nonsensical.
      • GoatRoper, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2"intellect and reason" evades this one, I remember the user as a big Paul spammer.
      • Minarchian, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Smacksaw,

        You can be all for Government regulation of the content of media, if you want.

        In the mean time, KMA.

        Goatroper.

        As usual...lies and smears. You'll never grow up.
    • marshpuck, on 07/27/2008, -1/+0This is a luxury item jackass.

      Im absolutely sure you bitched when Exxon and Mobil merged.

      Go jump off a bridge you commie.
      • Minarchian, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I'm the one arguing against the Government being involved in this ***** and you're calling ME a Commie?

        You're one twisted up loon....probably a big government loving neo-con.

        I bet McCain is your man, right?

        LOL!
  • gravesg, on 07/26/2008, -20/+6damn after the 3 years you can bet your ass the price is going up.

    MONOPOLY FTW!

    /sarcasm
    • toxicshok, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1why? They still have competitors
    • threemagic, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1If they do, I'll just go back to regular radio. I don't need satellite...

      oh wait.. I must because it's a monopoly.

      Look jackass, it's a pioneer in the market... the market is too new to support 2. Eventually if it becomes a viable market, more will show up.
  • kenvsryu, on 07/26/2008, -7/+53Welcome to the death of terrestrial radio. Go SiriusXM!!!
    • shadownetwork, on 07/26/2008, -0/+12Probably not with FM/AM very widespread, easy, and free. Also HD Radio is continuing to grow and is much better quality than FM and it is also free. Plan on terrestrial radio being here for a long long time.
      • mrmacky, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2Can't compete with free ;)
      • Tordenflesk, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Can't compete with EOS's barebones edits on redskunk
      • Cheeseburgers, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3ill pay the equivalent of an extra value meal at mcdonald's every month for 100 times the content and quality without commercials plus howard stern. that's a much better deal than free to me.
    • geddon, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1The DRM-free music sharing websites are picking up steam. Don't lose hope to the swarms of music subscription junkies who support massive media conglomerations.
      • toxicshok, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1yeah, there called torrents, there illegal
      • geddon, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1There are others, but i'm a fan of theSixtyOne.

        www.thesixtyone.com
    • MasterGrief, on 07/26/2008, -0/+5Radio from SPACE!
  • david76, on 07/26/2008, -4/+22It's interesting how everyone refers to this as a monopoly, as if there is no other way to get the content they distribute. Sure, there are some custom channels and original content, but there are certainly alternatives. It's not like the telcos or the oil industry, where there was no other vehicle to get the commodity being supplied. There are plenty of alternative venues for entertainment. Perhaps they have a monopoly on this partcicular mechanism of distribution, but they certainly don't have one on the content they're distributing.
    • mousky, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5I guess people haven't heard of terrestrial radio, streaming music and these devices called portable music players. And that is just the 'audio' competition. Radio competes with other forms of entertainment.
    • MtheoryX, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1How about Pandora for the iPhone? Yeah, works flawlessly over 3G too.
      • rossisdead, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Don't forget Last.FM, which is better
    • samthurston, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3monopoly ((economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller) "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"

      http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=monopoly

      This will be a monopoly on satellite radio. Not "audio content" or "audio broadcasting" no, but satellite radio yes. It's like saying that my cable company doesn't have a monopoly in my town because there is dish and broadcast. However everyone involved, including the cable company, admits that this is the case, and they have dispensation from the city government to be the cable-television monopoly.
      • mousky, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1It's only a monopoly if you define 'market' to be satellite radio. However, the market for 'radio' or audio content is more than satellite. It is terrestrial radio. It is internet streaming. It is podcasts. It is digital songs. It is many things.

        If you have satellite TV and cable TV, then you don't have a monopoly, you have a duopoly. So saying the cable company does not have a monopoly is correct.
      • samthurston, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1@mousky: that is what i just said. for the market of "Satellite Radio," it's a monopoly. unlike all the other "competitors" that you listed, a satellite radio works anywhere in the world, and provides the same content globally. You're wrong about the TV situation, because again, satellite and cable have different properties. Cable doesn't go out during storms, satellite can work in rural or remote areas where cables don't run. The fact that everyone acknowledges on paper that the cable company has a monopoly (including themselves) doesn't make any difference to you?
      • mousky, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Having different properties does not make something a 'market'. Perhaps they could describe a segment of the market.

        The cable company has a 'monopoly' on the delivery of TV content via a cable (a segment of the 'market'). It does not have a monopoly in the delivery of TV content (the 'market'), because I can get a satellite dish, I can purchase DVDs, or I can view TV content online.
    • Parkinsons, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Comcast does not have a monopoly in my area because I can still get dial up internet.
    • Fathom, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2also, you're forgetting the fact that it's ***** radio, not exactly bread.
  • Gforce20, on 07/26/2008, -8/+2Lol! My dad got an XM Radio attachment for his car, and now he has a new car that includes Sirius Radio, so he has both providers.
    • toxicshok, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2lol, you're retarded, XM radio is interoperable
    • Gforce20, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1...That's kind of what made it funny.
  • JazminMillion, on 07/26/2008, -3/+8Eat your heart out IMUS!

  • krs1pitt, on 07/26/2008, -13/+37ba ba booey, ba ba booey
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -2/+10Fla Fla Flo Hi
    • Mikidogo, on 07/26/2008, -2/+10Fa Fa Fooey that's Ba Ba Booey
      • j3ff86, on 07/26/2008, -1/+4Mac-hine
      • MillionsLivio, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3If you paid me 1/100th of the interest on your money I could feed my people, you cheap jew bastard.
      • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2*****!
    • MtheoryX, on 07/26/2008, -4/+5I loathe Howard "I invented it" Stern.
      • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -4/+3Why? Because he did?
      • MtheoryX, on 07/26/2008, -2/+3@tokabowia:

        Yes, stupid. He ***** invented Satellite radio. Or being syndicated on Satellite radio. Idiot. He hasn't invented *****.

        Reference: Google and Common ***** Sense (patent pending)
      • EndUserX, on 07/26/2008, -4/+2I loathe "We're Jealous That Howard Invented It" Opie & Anthony.
      • look4bears, on 07/26/2008, -3/+3you're a ***** dolt.

        howard stern has done it first in almost every single category related to radio.

      • MtheoryX, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2@EndUserX and look4bears:

        Yes, he invented all of it...

        Except for Satellite radio. Get your ***** dates right, kids. Howie was a bit late to the ***** game...by nearly a year this time.
      • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2@MtheoryX
        Yes, *****. That's exactly what I said. "Howard Stern invented satilite radio."
        What's the name of the brand of varnish remover your huffing right now? Cause at this point your brain must only be two club-foot cells slap-boxing each other.
        Can't even re-type my name correctly.
      • EndUserX, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1@MtheoryX

        Nobody said Stern invented satellite radio, but he did invent a GENRE of radio. When Stern arrived on Sirius, he was the singular force that popularized satellite radio like nobody else possibly could have. His impact on the satrad platform is undeniable, even by those two desperate Stern wannabes on XM who make lame "Howard invented" jokes while, ironically, trying to clone his act.
    • turtleman8089, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Is that from anger management?
  • voodoomurphy, on 07/26/2008, -18/+2Wow AWESOME!!! Who needs competition to drive innovation, right?? Who cares if there was specific verbiage in the FCC licences that both companies agreed to that stated that it was illegal for them to merge! We need NFL, Baseball, Howard Stern AND Ron and Fez on the same network!!!! WHOO HOOO!!!!!

    I guess a $20 million "fine" solves everything though!
    • madmanz123, on 07/26/2008, -1/+21There are about a million ways to get music these days, and this is a non-essential premium service. Explain to me why this is a monopoly? I'm not saying I'm 100% right, but I really can't think why this is an issue? Separately neither company is making money, the only chance of even having a choice of sat radio at all is if these businesses survive.

      FYI, my iphone can stream music from anywhere, I have free local radio, I have music i've purchased and loaded onto my iphone, I have hundreds of net casts, and podcasts available. MTV, VH1, etc etc. I mean how many more ways can I get news and radio?
      • MtheoryX, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Pandora FTW!

        Pandora + Internetz + Satellite radio = Terrestrial radio: your god damned days are numbered!
    • smacksaw, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Why not actually base your comments on the facts at hand? It's not like this hasn't been covered in an exhaustive manner on Digg. Surely you must know the parameters by now.

      Innovation? That's the angle you're taking? Desperate, much?

      Here's an example of the innovation you speak of: each company mortgaged themselves into oblivion trying to secure exclusive content so they could have an advantage over the other. That's how they innovated.

      No, the failure was allowing them to sign exclusive content deals. If there was no exclusive content, you would have seen the competition people wanted. And you would have seen lower prices, because no one would have paid the absurd amounts that Howard, Oprah, Martha, the NFL and MLB demanded. Competition is what hurt this industry. Now that there's only one, where does Howard go? He'll take what they offer him.
    • sleepbox, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Go cry some more hippie
  • spamcrusher, on 07/26/2008, -7/+22I can't believe people are complaining about the fact that rates might go up in three years. It's as if people are entitled to satellite radio for cheap? It's the free market, people. If you don't like the price they are charging, you can choose to not buy satellite radio. Not to mention, both Sirius and XM are more expensive today than when they both started service years ago and they directly competed. This isn't a monopoly, they do compete with MP3 players and traditional radio.
    • aelias, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1I don't recall them ever raising the price. Sirius has been 12.95/mo for three years at least.
    • consonance, on 07/26/2008, -3/+4I can't believe you're defending price increases! Oh yeah, we're so greedy, we're taking everything from the satellite radio companies, we're fleecing them, and we're leaving them out in the cold. Give me a break! Price increases ALWAYS happen after mergers in an industry take place, ESPECIALLY ones that result in monopolies.

      While it's true that satellite radio does compete with terrestrial radio and regular music, now the Sirius/XM hybrid has a monopoly over the satellite radio market. Now, they are competing with no one. Previously, if you didn't like Sirius, you went to XM, and vice versa. You can say it's great now, now that the programming is combined, but what about in the future? What if the monopoly really irks you--I mean, want to cancel your subscription? Where are you going to go if you still want satellite radio? That's right, there's no one else. Sirius/XM now are a monopoly, so they will be able to take a dump on you and not care, since you can't cancel your subscription and find a different provider.
      • marshpuck, on 07/27/2008, -1/+0If you didnt like the price....leave. This is a luxury item that no one walking this earth NEEDS.

        If they take a turn for the worst they will lose subscribers and go under.

        Go listen to terrestrial radio and save your 13 bucks, socialist.
  • Jerky1312, on 07/26/2008, -11/+4I see a lot of people getting excited about the merger (I wanted to see it happen by the way), but I don't think they are going to keep 100% of both line ups. They are probably going to cut most of the shows to save costs. Part of the reason they had star studded programming (Howard, Oprah, Martha, Opie & Anthony, etc.) is because they were competing directly with each other. Now that they are merged, they don't need such high priced radio hosts and I expect a good portion of the shows to be canceled and replaced with lesser programming.
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2Yeah, they're most likely going to merge/cut the redundant genre-based channels (please please PLEASE keep HardAttak & drop that gay LiquidMetal channel!)
      Howard isn't going anywhere of course, because... ACK ACK!
    • gquaglia, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Bull, they still need big acts to attract new subscribers and to keep them.
    • tenio, on 07/26/2008, -0/+7they need lots of channels, they might not be fighting each other, but they still are fighting Ipods/mp3 players, normal radio, CD's
  • tylermenezes, on 07/26/2008, -3/+9Sirius has better stations. XM has much better reception. Therefore, I'm kind of happy.
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -1/+12Which is weird, because Sirius has 3 satellites & XM only has 2. Well, now they have 5 damn satellites!!!!
      • rossisdead, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Not really. They both have repeating towers all over the place that act like regular radio antennas.
      • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4You are correct sir! But only in the major metro areas. STL only has one, and that for downtown where there's a ton of bridges. Bridges & gas-pump-canopies are my enemies.
    • EndUserX, on 07/26/2008, -0/+5I've never had a problem with Sirius reception.
    • samthurston, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1hooray! two substandard services shall now be one substandard service! everyone rejoice!
      • eliotmat, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1For me satellite radio is to AM/FM what Cable/Satellite TV is to over-the-air broadcast television.

        The only thing substandard about Satellite radio is the hardware involved. The service is top-notch.
  • CoronaVegas, on 07/26/2008, -0/+5So as a Sirius subscriber, when can I activate my wife's XM in her car for $6.99/ month?
    • Yoshi2000, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0Wouldn't you need to buy a reciever also?
    • Cheeseburgers, on 07/26/2008, -1/+9I'll activate your wife's receiver.
      • eliotmat, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Zing!
      • CoronaVegas, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Very nice, I must be getting old, because I actually enjoyed that.
        For the record, you might want to wait a week to "activate her receiver", all she's playing is, "Sunday, Bloody Sunday"
  • zeeky, on 07/26/2008, -14/+1are you sirious?
  • omyard, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2About damn time, I can't wait for ala cart pricing and Sirus/XM receivers. I've been waiting for over a year to upgrade my receiver because of this merger.
  • omyard, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4I wonder how this will effect their online music offering? I listen to a lot of Sirius on my computer and it'd be nice to have XM's online feed too without having to pay for a separate XM online subscription, or atleast at a discount rate.
  • dearsomeone, on 07/26/2008, -6/+12Finally, I can drop loads all over this merger.
    • still0lil0wagon, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5yeaaaaaaah........... droppin' loads all over Kevin Martin's toupe'!
    • riseabove, on 07/26/2008, -1/+4droppin' *****' loads
    • tokabowla, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3WWWWWEEET SATELLITE!
      FILTHY!
  • chaos7, on 07/26/2008, -9/+3XM is a better name than Sirius
    • redrighthand, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5Each service has their fanboys this is not the place to play favorites but to celebrate a single service.
    • dpowre, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4i agree. it kinda keeps along the same lines as "FM" and "AM", but with a more futuristic flair.
    • GLMonkey, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4I think they should call it Xirium, combine the 2 and make one super cool Scientology-esque name.
  • Kbond34, on 07/26/2008, -5/+2Its about time.. I don't like either one because there are about 100 stations on each that completely suck.. Now I won't have to pick the least suckiest out of the 2.
  • Psythik, on 07/26/2008, -1/+8About a year ago, I canceled my subscription (because I couldn't afford it), but my service was never shut off. I wondering if, with this merger, someone will suddenly take notice and send me a massive bill...
    • vtcessnapilot, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3That's a known flaw with their deactivation system... As soon as you cancel your account, your radio receives a generic deact code. to shut it off for good.

      Considering how little bandwidth they have after all the channels are compressed and broadcast, there's not much room to constantly send this type of signal. Long story short, turn of your radio, cancel your account, then leave your radio off for at least a month or two... turn it back on, and after the unit updates, you've got free sat. radio.

      That being said, I do pay for my other three receivers... I like the product, so I'll spend the money for it.
      • seinman, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2That only works for so long. It's true that they send the de-authorization signal less often after the first month or two, but they still periodically send it. If you're unlucky enough to be using your radio when it goes out, you're out of luck, but if you happen to have it off every time it's rebroadcast, you may just get free service for life.
      • pwherry, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0Actually, no, you'll eventually lose service. In addition to the "shut off now" signal that's sent to a recently-deactivated radio, there are also crypto key updates that are sent individually to authorized radios. Since inactive radios don't receive these key updates, they'll eventually be unable to decrypt the audio stream even if they never happen to be listening when a deactivation is sent.

        This is why it's sometimes necessary to call (or go online) for a radio refresh if you've had an authorized radio turned off for a long time; if you miss all of the key updates sent to you, your radio won't decrypt content regardless of the status of your account.
  • GoatRoper, on 07/26/2008, -0/+8Once Crazy Alice approved of it it was a done deal.
  • over9k, on 07/26/2008, -7/+0If MS is a monopoly then why isn't this a monopoly?
    • still0lil0wagon, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3because it's an audio entertainment delivery system. Of which there are several to choose from. Free radio (The F.M. dial in the Bay Area is illing up with Spanish stations btw) mp3 players, internet radio, A.M. Sportstalk KNBR.... THE Sports Leader.... "Tell me how my ass tastes?" - R. Barbieri, Radio via my cable outlet... ummmm what else.... itunes? podacasts... you name it. NAB spent much money fighting it... and LOST! ... FACE!!!! you mo**** ***kers!!!! Now it's time for Robin Quivers to make a sex tape with Florentine :-)
      • over9k, on 07/26/2008, -3/+1Well, in that case MS isn't a monoply either because there are other OS to choose from like Ubuntu, OSX etc.
      • theBlaze74, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Crap! I guess we shouldn't have split Microsoft up then. Oh wait. We didn't.
    • GhostFreeman, on 07/26/2008, -1/+4Isn't Clear Channel a monopoly?
    • AbsurdParadox, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1MS is not a monopoly.
  • ckeenan, on 07/26/2008, -11/+5Why do people think this is good? It is another Monopoly where there will be no regulation and customer choice.
    • 33PercentGod, on 07/26/2008, -3/+7Really? So you're telling me Sirius and XM are the only places to get music from?

      I guess I was asleep for the death of mp3 players,CD players,regular radio,etc.

      Satellite radio isn't something you need to survive like oil,food,or electricity.
    • juckman, on 07/26/2008, -3/+3^^^

      I honestly wonder how many times this will have to be explained to braindead people like ckeenan.
  • akchrs, on 07/26/2008, -5/+9Howard Stern said he would never again vote for a Democrat after what they did to this merger. I couldn't agree more.
    • iceyone, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Really? Because the last time I heard, there were THREE republicans on the FCC board. If the REPUBLICAN MAJORITY had gotten off of its ass and voted, then this would have been done long ago.

      I think it's pretty hilarious how people are claiming that a Republican run DOJ and a Republican run FCC waiting for over a year to approve this very simple merger has anything whatsoever to do Democrats.

      As an aside, thanks for letting the rest of us know you're on the Karl Rove "Stupid Republican talking point of the week" mailing list.
  • devophl, on 07/26/2008, -4/+4I wish this was more of a merger. Both have incompatible technologies and too much content to fit in their bandwidth. Its looking like more of a takeover of XM by Sirius with some additional content coming over from XM.

    The only thing I've heard is that initially, the two networks will continue to operate their existing networks but that some content from the each network will be shared. For example, XM will dump its music in favor of Sirius' music lineup. This will save on music royalties. Also, common talk networks will be combined. Right now there is too much unique content because of exclusive licensing but this will have to be pared down due to the limited bandwidth. The sports content is also tricky. I'm not sure either networks can carry both sports lineups without going to partial coverage. And finally, any station will limited listeners especially on the music side will be eliminated.

    Sadly, what you end up with is something much closer to what's on AM and FM than what we see currently on satellite radio.... a lot of country, rock and hip hip in terms of music and more generic talk radio content. Sports coverage of baseball and NHL will be superseded by coverage of NFL, NASCAR and NBA.

    You can't get everything both networks have to offer so we'll get a subset of each. In the end, it won't be any difference from terrestrial radio and then why pay $13/month for it??
    • mrmacky, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Because you don't want to spend $100+ on an HD-Radio receiver?
    • look4bears, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2all satellite radios are equipped to receive both sirius and XM signals.

      but you wouldn't know that because...? you didn't research your *****.
      • syphix, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1WRONG. If so, then XM/SIRIUS have been holding back information from the FCC and wouldn't have gotten into hot water for not bringing an interoperable radio to market. There is NO such radio available. I'd like you to try to prove it otherwise.

        Research YOUR *****.
      • look4bears, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1i will not!

        check out the initial licensing agreement signed in 1998. check the verbiage, and don't sweat the techniques!
      • syphix, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1The initial licensing agreement for XM/SIRIUS states that they are to "design" (i.e., develop) an interoperable radio. Nothing in the requirement states that the radio must be brought to market:
        http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080610-siri ...
        "...the FCC's 1997 Order authorizing the satellite Digital Audio Radio satellite Service (DARS) declared that all licensees "are required to design a receiver which would accommodate all satellite DARS providers."

        Original March 3, 1997 FCC order:
        http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/15/releases/fc970 ...
        "We therefore proposed that each applicant demonstrate that its satellite DARS system is capable of remotely tuning its individual mobile, fixed, and/or portable receivers across the allocated bandwidth 2310-2360 MHz.
        ...
        This rule also will promote competition by reducing transaction costs and enhancing consumers' ability to switch between competing DARS providers."

        And it hasn't been brought to market:
        http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080610-siri ...
        "Sirius/XM's lawyers say that the firms have not taken the "ultimate step of bringing interoperable radios to market" because (take a deep breath here) "it would not make economic sense for them to do so, since they ordinarily subsidize the production of their radios and would not be assured of recouping these subsidies for interoperable radios through subscription fees."

        Unless you're suggesting that SIRIUS/XM's lawyers are lying to not only the FCC, but also SIRIUS/XM shareholders...which would be INCREDIBLY dangerous for them to do.
      • devophl, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1My understanding is that both XM and Sirius use a DVB-S type transmission and that both XM and Sirius radios could be configured to receive this signal. But past that, the similarities end. XM and Sirius use a different method for audio encryption and the protocols for channeling and administration are totally different. You could develop a radio to do both but why would you?

      • look4bears, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1right right i was confused. a little bit.

        the two can be made compatible with a firmware update. so say my sources.
    • Jeffler, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Are you actually suggesting that the MLB wouldn't get fair coverage? (BTW, I'm actually a hockey fan who wouldn't be shocked with the NHL being crippled a bit by this, but not the MLB ffs)
    • devophl, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I heard yesterday that the merged XM and Sirius will be moving to a new frequency that will provide a vast majority of the content of both. But you will need a new radio and subscribe to a new plan (will be more money but might not be twice the current fee). As part of the FCC agreement, your existing radios will get the existing content for I believe 2 more years but the old XM and Sirius frequencies will be phased out eventually. This will require you to move to the new radio and new content down the road.

      So the bottom line is that to get all the content, you will need a new radio and pay more. If you keep your current radio, there will be little or no change for a couple of years. This means XM will still look like XM and Sirius like Sirius.

      I'm not sure what this means for my XM receiver in my car. I guess I will have to eventually pay to get a new radio installed but that won't be for a couple of years.
  • 33PercentGod, on 07/26/2008, -1/+5Full Merger Effect.
  • Yoshi2000, on 07/26/2008, -2/+7Hey now!
  • Jingoism, on 07/26/2008, -2/+11Monday Morning 7/28
    6:00 am: Howard is excited about the merger.
    6:01 am: Howard begins bitching about merge.
  • gemlarin, on 07/26/2008, -0/+8"...$19.7 million penalty for past FCC rule violations"

    The FCC gets theirs.
  • tomjeff08, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0I paid for the lifetime subscription with Sirius. It'll be interesting to see what happens once the merger goes through. Sirius only has two decent metal stations. Hopefully I'll get one or two more from XM.
  • shpadoinkle, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2All I really need is Sirius to listen to the Howard Stern Show, I don't listen to the music channels at all.
  • TheCammer, on 07/26/2008, -4/+9They have to keep Opie and Anthony!
  • ScreamOn, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1what happens in canada?
  • Orlov, on 07/26/2008, -5/+2Howard Stern is GOD BABABOOEY! Since Sirius is buying out XM I believe that Sirius will control everything and probably keep the same name, everything should be available from XM's network on Sirius.com and on your portables once they get everything up and running.
  • LaZyLion, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4$19.7 million penalty for past FCC rule violations.

    wtf? what violations?

    FCC does not govern sat radio content!
    • GoatRoper, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2The fm transmitters for in car devices has a too strongt signal
  • IveDefected, on 07/26/2008, -3/+6Now I can have XMU and O&A!
  • akchrs, on 07/26/2008, -5/+2Bubba the Love Sponge will make out too. Ned is Manson.
  • atomicbang13, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3I have siri stock. Whoo hooo!
    • Biks, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I do too. Let's see what happens on Monday.
  • akchrs, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4o qua tan zin wa
    • smalleststep, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1qua on sa la gin wahn
      • scoresman, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0Lookie here you cheap jew *****.... I used to fight bare knuckle and wont hesitate to knock you and and that bitch Robin out!

        Buy a symbol
  • univerio, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Damn, that's some sirius news.
  • NextGenXbox, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4Frrrruuuuuunkus!!!
    • ThaDRD, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Take your unit and flush it down the toilet. ***** the little doggy company.
      • filovirus, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Don't forget about your mother. Linger Longer
      • aquapete, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1baaahahahahahhaa.

        happy birthday everyone
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.