What is Digg?Sponsored by Backblaze
Your Hard Drive Died? There, there... view!
backblaze.com - Find out how to back everything up over the Internet--your girlish sobs are making us uncomfortable.
115 Comments
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43smellinator
I agree with you that competition is a great thing. This super-satellite radio company, which will have full control of its content, runs the risk of ruining everything with bad management. Imagine how much it would suck if the new company suddenly decided to censor music and news. That would basically ruin satellite radio for everyone.
On the other hand, the current system seems wasteful to me. Two (essentially identical) companies are entirely incompatible. Why should I have to decide between the two? I should be able to buy a radio and get signals from both. This merger is our best chance of that happening. - ApontePR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40My opinion, for what it's worth: Satellite radio is a luxury item . . . no one is being forced into purchasing it. If they raise the price, you can opt out and not pay for it anymore. Secondly, if these guys don't do this, they'll probably go bankrupt, meaning no satellite radio at all.
- TheCash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17They already face competition from AM/FM broadcasters, as well as people who prefer to listen to their own CD's or Ipods while they drive.
I see this as a good thing for two reasons:
A: Whether you are a sirius or xm subscriber, shortly your content choices are going to practically double. While some channels are copycats of the other brand's, both companies have loads of exclusive content geared for pulling in subscribers. This also means a new standard for receivers, which will hopefully lead to cheaper and better solutions for the home and car audio set.
B: Such an agressive move will finally push AM/FM broadcasters to bite the bullet and upgrade their signals to HD and offer more variety in their offerings. This is going to suck for them in the short run because it's not a cheap thing to do, but in the long run it is a win for consumers as sound quality and their choices both increase, and the price of HD Radio solutions for the home and car decreases. - smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -28/+40Let's hope this doesn't pass regulatory checks. We need competition in this market! It's crazy to let these two merge!
You can disagree with me - all I ask is that you explain why this is a good idea, rather than just burying me with your vote. The ONLY reason I can think of, for this being a good idea is that I think generally the government should keep their hands out of business. But this cannot be good for the customer (they will probably keep separate product offerings, or raise the prices due to lack of competition).
Please help me understand why you think this is good! - covert215, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14What about the XM player I have built into my car? I better not get screwed over.
- gregdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@Prez:
"Can you hear O&A, Howard, Buba, unedited and in their full creativity on AM/FM? NOPE. Those of you saying that Sirius and XM are competing with AM/FM have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."
Offering programs not found on terrestrial radio is how satellite radio competes. That's what competition is all about: choices. - BradW1979, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Highlights: investors would get 4.6 shares of Sirius stock for each share of XM ~ current regulations would need to be changed in order for the merger to gain approval -- so don't get your celebratin' started just yet.
- chris4404, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11O&A might just get bumped back to FreeFM exclusively.
- ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Lets hope it goes down like this:
XM Hardware (It is at least 2 generations ahead of Sirius)
XM sound quality (I personally cannot tell the difference, but study after study; review after review says XM is a wee bit better)
Sirius programing.
And kick Clearchannel in the nuts. God! I hope this gets their tentacles out of satellite radio. - PeteLP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@killerofkiller
"FCC has no jurisdiction over this "
Yes they do. As does the DOJ. The FCC chooses to licenses the spectrum used to transmit sat radio signals.
When Sirius first applied to the FCC for their license (Sirius was called CD-Radio at that time) they were told they would only get it, if they could get some other company to run a similar business so that there would be competition. Thus XM was born. (And yes XM went live first due to Sirius's tech problems.)
I'm hoping this goes through since I agree with those that say prices won't go up, but content options will. They are both really having financial difficulties so this will help them survive. Increased prices would reduce sub growth IMO, and thus is not a big concern.
I'm totally in favor of anti trust regs in general, but not everywhere nor at all costs. I believe this monopoly would be better for both the consumers and the investors. - Firehunter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yeah I hate Clear Channel, I was pissed when they decided to add commercials to their stations on XM. I was glad to see XM step up and release commercial free stations of the same type.
- nubi78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Great, now I will get to hear more bitching from O&A about Howard because they work for the same company. Yay!
- YoDiggity2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's you'RE blocked, *****!
- mgnyc11, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10So then cancel your subscription. I love how things like satellite radio, which is completely a luxury and has no real necessity in society is being accuse of being a monopoly.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There doesn't need to be just one satellite company, but instead the FCC needs to force them to allow other companies to make devices that work with both of their services. That would be the key.
- t1da1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I can't wait to hear what Howard Stern has to say about this. While I'm thinking of it, I won't need to buy a new radio will I?
- TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, because investors didn't know about this deal until it was front page news...
- maddoginthefog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@smellinator
It's doubtful that either Sirius or XM would survive on their own without this merger. Both companies were money losing operations with a lot of their costs going towards marketing against each other. I think they needed this in order for satellite radio to become a viable long-term business. - Trams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hope this proves to be good news. I'm assuming this will only make satellite radio better for everyone. Lets hope assumptions aren't always for a**holes.
- pmichaelson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Competition is a great thing, and there will still be competition: terrestrial radio. Clear Channel and others will of course oppose this merger because it weakens their position in the radio market, which is evidence in and of itself that satellite and terrestrial radio are in competition.
I am generally happy about this (I predicted this merger almost a year ago, which says nothing more than that I have basic common sense); my primary concern is that I don't want to lose any of my Sirius content in favor of XM channels. I really love my Sirius, particularly for Howard Stern (if you haven't heard him on satellite, you haven't heard him at all), and if I lose any of it I will be disappointed. I am not really aware of what XM offers, but I know what I like and I already have it in my current solution. - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7There should be at least 2 satellite radio/tv providers but they should be required to use compatable hardware...
The mergers should have been XM with DTV and Sirius with Dish - doublsh0t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are some major hurdles that this has to cross before the merger can happen. FCC Approval is one of them--DirecTV an Dish Network tried to do this but they were blocked due to the possibility of a monopoly and less competition in the market. I hope this does happen though, though I'm not sure whether it'll be an absorption or a merger...or what the difference is when it comes to who keeps their name.
- rkn5555, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4there shouldn't be a problem. there is plenty of radio competition.
what this would do is just take the assets of one company and combine them with another to create a profitable business.
Without this, odds are that one of the companies would fold.
Then there would still then be one company. That is if the other company would
have been able to outlive the first one to go bankrupt.
Again. there is plenty of competition.
If Vonage and another voip company wanted to merge, there would be no problem.
There is plenty of competition from the "old" phone companies. - mugdecoffee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even if these two do form an satellite radio monopoly, its hardly a monopoly that can be abused. What if I were to have a monopoly on hamster wheels? If I made poor quality wheels or raised their price, you would not buy them. It's when you have a monopoly on something like light bulbs that you have to be careful.
- shortwaveradio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've been toying with getting/asking for satellite radio, and I was torn between these two only due to my love for both baseball and football, and having my favorite teams out of my home market. To have both NFL and MLB games accessible on one service for a low subscription price (and no added "packages") would be pretty awesome. I think for people on the fence about satellite radio this could be a good thing, as long as they don't pull a Time Warner Cable.
- Weenis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The argumentthey'll use is that they aren't a monopoly. They are just one entity fighting with free radio, iPods. internet radio, podcasting, CDs ect...
Will the SEC or FCC buy that? We'll find out. - Weenis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ TheCash
"Whether you are a sirius or xm subscriber, shortly your content choices are going to practically double."
What makes you think that? Bandwidth and costs issues, as well as changes in management all but guarantee that MANY shows/channels/personalities will be axed. It's not like you get all of both. PLus, for those all excited about the prospect of all the sports on one service, who knows what will happen there. With no competition in satellite radio, who knows how these contracts could change. Obviously the new Sirius/XM will want to pay less for the sports now that they aren't exclusive. I'm not sure how happy the sports will be about that. - pigsbladder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4renewed sirius at christmas for another 2 years.... I guess we'll see what happens
- hom3land, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5as they don't mess with sirius channel 26 left of center i don't care what happens.
- DoverGeek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Woo hoo, NOT! Its only a matter of time before they will charge $5 to $10 extra per month to have the "Sports Package" since there would be no need to offer them for free since there is no competition. Not to mention that Sirius's radio programming is far superior to XM's from what I have listened to.
- soulpiercer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3if they are both the same story, which one are we supposed to digg?
- kyote, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Frankie4Fingers: Damn, what is up with you kids and wanting government intervention all the freaking time. Force business to do this, don't let business do that. It's called FREE ENTERPRISE people! You obviously have never owned your own business before or you would know what it's like. Anybody remember studying prohibition in school? The government outlawed alcohol and shut down all the bars. That's government intervention in private business. And all you people demanding it should stop and think about what your asking. Someday, you may have a business and it just may be people don't like what your doing and instead of competing against you, they'll just lobby the govt to force you to stop doing what you want.
- jstem1994, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed. I got XM to get away from my local ClearChannel stations... This could get interesting.
- sexycommando, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6How does satellite radio being a luxury item have anything to do with this being a monopoly? The two are unrelated. I believe the point you were trying to make is, although this does make it a monopoly, since it is such a niche luxury item, it doesn't matter because it does not affect enough people or anyone's basic needs.
- zomgflamer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Listen mother *****, Pay me!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhh...
- Andrewc989, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Smellinator,
I whole-heartedly agree with you on the advantages of competition, but in this specific case I think these two companies were faced with merging as their best option. If price hikes do occur however, you can bet that either customers will stop subscribing or new competitors will enter the market and convince users to switch to their cheaper service. On the point of separate product offerings, I tend to disagree. The merger likely means continuance of many of their current programs, and therefore customers can look forward to more channels with their service. - christianw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i think sirius should stay on the hard line aggressive path for a few more years, then they will be able to just buy xm considering everything that company touches turns to *****.
what concerns me most about this, is that clearchannel communication is a major investor in XM. if they have anything to do w/ sirius, ill sell my radio and just go back to net stations. - weddle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So will my monthly fee go up?
What will the combined programming look like?
Sometimes competition is a good thing...
I was about to cancel my XM service but I think I will hold off for now. - fletcher008, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4you will probably hear less, because they will have to "play nice in the sandbox" working under the same corporate umbrella. just remember what happened the last time they both worked for the same company.
- Tanpreet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i wonder how this affects canadian suscribers.....
- Carramrod72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Had XM for a year.
Then my work put Sirius in our cars. (Which is such a nice thing to do...)
I think Sirius is better. BUT, the fact that the next guy may say XM is better keeps everyone on their toes...
I am not interested in any financial aspects of this merger. I am interested in hearing good music, uncensored, with options, options and more options to choose from. We all know that being the consumer in a market where "My Humps" and "Fergilicous" (or JJ FAD's Supersonic as it was called the first time it came out..) outsell The Hold Steady, The Cold War Kids, Kings of Leon and Todd Snider (All artists I love and hear on Sirius, not FM...) combined, can make you feel like your voice isn't heard. I feel that Sirius has always come through and been on the cutting edge without forgetting where it came from...
Its a fast paced society. We are force fed music we don't have to think about. None of the ***** on mainstream FM radio will hold up after time. The good stuff that will last is out there, but we don't take the time to really listen.... SO THE QUESTION IS, IF AND WHEN THESE TWO MERGE, KNOWING PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE LOYAL SATELLITE LISTENERS AND WON'T GO BACK TO AM/FM, WILL THEY KEEP UP THE PACE? I hope so!! - gatorrock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Obviously folks here don't understand "Monopoly" in terms of bad business practice
Yes there will be one company- but this isn't a hostile take over and the 2 companies aren't saying "No one else can do this"
Simply a matter of business- both companies are struggling and decide- why compete- work together. This isn't destruction of one company- but creating something bigger and better.
And those fearing rate increases- run to Sirius and sign-up for the lifetime subscription! Then you'll never worry- and you have 3 times you can change that subscription to a new device (for a fee of course).
Folks free enterprise will allow this media to grow- if you are afraid so much about this, go out and start your own company with investors and make it work.
I'm thrilled by this... I've got sirius and soon I'll have both... NICE! - kyote, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@smellinator: yeah, your right. free enterprise is stupid. the government should control business and say who can do business with who and who can partner with who. dang it, i hate freedom!
/end sarcasm
// end rant
/// slashies rock! - Radiohead84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I want this to go through, but i think its going to have a hard time doing it. Direct TV and Dish Network tried to merge but that didnt fly with the anti-trust policies. There are a lot of ways you can get your TV, these tv networks have fierce competition from cable and they should have labeled the market as all mediums that let you watch tv. In this case I hope they label the market as all ways people can listen to music which is a lot. These companies are not very profitable(I think they just became slightly profitable if i am not mistaken) and I think a merger would increase profits and create a better service for everyone. I do not think that they would be able to charge monopoly prices.
- kirk06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No *****?
Guess what? That was before it was *official* It was speculation up to this point. - Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Um... please check your facts. ClearChannel isn't going to oppose anything since they are in the process of deconstruction after being sold off. Within months they won't even EXIST anymore.... It's AMAZING how many people are unaware that ClearChannel has effectively vanished.
- k1down, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Best choice I ever made ditchin these stocks last year when they were at their all-time highs. One and only ever good stock decision FTW!
- perogi21, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"Cause right now XM has by far the better music channels."
Actually, all of my friends that had XM left because many of the music channels suck. Or the ones that they listened to were removed or had commercials added. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I can smell the resumes flying through the ether already.
- wrestlingnrj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As long as they don't change any of the channels. I have both XM and Sirius, but I hate XM. I know there are people that are on both sides of the fence. If they keep their current channel lineup the same I believe that everyone will be happy. Just my two cents.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is